Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 12 (2019) 114–124

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm

Research Paper

Destination brand equity-formation: Positioning by tourism type and T

message consistency
M.A. Rodríguez-Molina, D.M. Frías-Jamilena∗, S. Del Barrio-García, J.A. Castañeda-García
Department of Marketing and Market Research, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Empresariales, University of Granada, Campus de la Cartuja s/n, C.P.18071, Granada,
Spain

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper seeks contribute to the literature on the formation of consumer-based destination brand equity
Consumer-based destination brand equity (CBDBE), on the premise that positioning is a major source of competitive advantage for organizations, coupled
Destination positioning with an effective strategy to communicate that positioning. The aims of the study are: (1) to examine which type
Integrated marketing communication of positioning (specialized vs. diversified) is best suited to generating greater CBDBE, and (2) to identify the
Message consistency
extent to which message consistency (high vs. low) within the integrated marketing communications strategy for
Tourism
the destination moderates that relationship. The results of the study make a contribution to the specialist lit-
erature on brand destination and integrated marketing communications, and offer interesting implications for
tourist destination managers seeking to ensure their destination is selected by tourists.

1. Introduction
Identifying the factors that contribute to generating a competitive
edge in tourism has become a pressing challenge, given the fierce
competition between destinations (Pike & Page, 2014). One of the key
resources for destinations in this regard is brand-building. Studies on
the concept of brand management were a central theme in marketing in
the 20th century (Bastos & Levy, 2012). The first publication on des-
tination brand management was published toward the end of the 1990s
(i.e. Dosen, Vranesevic, & Prebezac, 1998).
The brand management literature proposes that the consumer-based
brand equity (CBBE) model developed by Aaker (1991, 1996) and
Keller (1993, 2003) is highly appropriate for marketing managers
seeking to measure and evaluate consumer perceptions of their brands
(Pike & Bianchi, 2013). The ability to select the positioning strategy
that best achieves growth in brand equity is fundamental for profes-
sionals charged with managing tourist destinations, as it is an important
source of competitive advantage (Hooley, Saunders, & Piercy, 2004;
Porter, 1980).
A number of topics have been addressed in the literature related to
the positioning of tourist destinations. Some studies have investigated
the context of tourist destination image (Gallarza, Gil, & Garcia, 2002;
Gartner, 1989), while others have empirically examined the positioning
of tourist destinations relative to other competing destinations (Andreu,
Bigne, & Cooper, 2000; Botha, Crompton, & Kim, 1999; Calantone, Di
Bendetto, 1989; Chen & Uysal, 2002; Claveria & Poluzzi, 2017;
Crompton, Fakeye, & Lue, 1992; Evren & Kozak, 2018; Gartner, 1989;
Goodrich, 1978; Haahti, 1986; Kim, 1998; Kozak & Rimmington, 1999;
Melián-González & García-Falcón, 2003; Uysal, Chen & Williams,
2000). These works identify various attributes related to tourist pre-
ferences, destination characteristics and the benefits that tourist are
looking to derive from destinations. They show that both the location
and attributes of the destinations can help determine the differential
status that distinguishes one destination from another (Seongseop Kim,
Chung & Petrick, 2005). Other studies on positioning have sought to
establish possible positioning typologies (Blankson & Kalafatis, 2004)
and establish the attributes required to achieve a given positioning
(Laing & Lewis, 2017). Also of note are those works that investigate the
concept of destination positioning (Grabler, 1997; Uysal, Chen &
Williams, 2000) and the range of decisions made by tourists visiting a
destination (Botha et al., 1999; Crompton, 1992; Pike, 2006, 2012;
Woodside & Sherrell, 1977) as indicators of competitiveness, not only of
destination appeal (Pike, 2006). Also worthy of particular attention are
studies that address the effectiveness of positioning and its effect on the
firm (Fisher, 1991; McAlexander, Becker, & Kaldenberg, 1993) and on
the consumer (Chen & Uysal, 2002; Kozak & Rimmington, 1999; Mayo
& Jarvis, 1981; Mykletun, Crotts, & Mykletun, 2001).
Yet despite the breadth of literature on topics related to destination

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rmolina@ugr.es (M.A. Rodríguez-Molina), dfrias@ugr.es (D.M. Frías-Jamilena), dbarrio@ugr.es (S. Del Barrio-García),
jalberto@ugr.es (J.A. Castañeda-García).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.03.010
Received 8 October 2018; Received in revised form 15 February 2019; Accepted 29 March 2019
Available online 13 May 2019
2212-571X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.A. Rodríguez-Molina, et al.
positioning, some issues remain to be investigated in depth (Pike, 2006,
2012). Among these is the challenge of differentiating between desti-
nations that are at the same competitive level and offer the same
characteristics (Pike, 2012). It is therefore of interest to attempt to es-
tablish the positioning that would be optimally fit-for-purpose in terms
of tourists selecting a given destination over other others presenting
similar characteristics.
Communicating effectively the chosen positioning is the next chal-
lenge for destinations. Applying an integrated marketing communica-
tions (IMC) strategy helps ensure that all messages are coordinated and
consistent with the desired positioning of the destination. Effective
communication is of particular interest in those services with few
physical components that can be used as a differentiating element
(Elliott & Boshoff, 2008), as is the case in tourism. In this regard, sev-
eral authors note that IMC performs an important role in contributing to
brand equity (Delgado-Ballester, Navarro, & Sicilia, 2012; Srivastava,
Fahey & Shervani, 2000; Šerić, 2017).
Among the various dimensions that constitute the IMC concept,
message consistency is considered the most basic level of integration. It
refers to the strategic coherence conveyed in the messages that are
communicated via different tools and channels, with the aim of
achieving clear positioning for the brand (Caywood, Schultz, & Wang,
1991). One of the major challenges to be resolved in the academic lit-
erature, then, is to establish how integrated the consumers perceive the
messages they receive through diverse communication channels to be
(Phelan, Chen, & Haney, 2013) and, in turn, their response to those
messages, expressed in their evaluation of brand equity. Within the
tourism context, only a few studies have focused on analyzing the effect
of applying an IMC strategy, from the tourist perspective (Elliott &
Boshoff, 2008; Skinner, 2005; Wang, Wu & Yuan, 2009; Šeric, Gil-Saura
& Ozretić-Došen, 2015; Šerić, 2017; Šerić & Gil-Saura, 2011, 2012;
Šerić, Gil-Saura & Ruiz-Molina, 2014). These works have made inroads
toward understanding IMC in the tourism sector, based on descriptive
and/or survey-based investigations. However, given the complexity of
the IMC approach and the fact that there is a significant cross-over
between its effects and those of other antecedents of brand equity, the
present study adopts an experimental perspective.
The aim of the research is to examine which positioning strategy is
best suited to generating greater CBDBE, and the extent to which
message consistency within the destination's IMC strategy moderates
that relationship. Within this overall aim, the two main research ob-
jectives are: (1) to analyze whether a destination positioning strategy
based on specialization is superior to one based on diversity of offer, in
terms of generating greater destination brand equity and (2) to test the
extent to which a destination strategy based on a high level of con-
sistency among different media and communication tools vs. one based
on a lower level of consistency moderates the influence of positioning
type on CBDBE. The experiment design uses the Internet as the com-
munication channel, and promotional video and destination blog as the
communication tools.
Typically, a tourist destination will offer a wide range of different
attractions, albeit these tend to be associated with a particular type of
tourism (Spain: sea and sand; Austria: culture; Chilean Patagonia: ad-
venture; and so on). In contrast to the advantages of clearly positioning
a destination by focusing on specialization, there is also the wide appeal
of diversified positioning. The present investigation will examine both
approaches, to identify the most effective strategy in terms of gen-
erating brand equity. In addition, very few works to date have analyzed
the role of IMC from the client perspective. That being the case, this is
the first work to analyze, using an experimental approach, how message
consistency moderates the effectiveness of a destination positioning
strategy, in terms of the tourist's own evaluation of the destination's
brand equity.
The present study makes a number of contributions to the extant
literature. First, the findings show that a positioning strategy based on
tourism type exerts a significant effect on CBDBE. More specifically, the
115
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 12 (2019) 114–124
effect of the positioning strategy on CBDBE is greater when it is based
on one single type of tourism than when it is based on different types.
Second, the study highlights the importance of the particular commu-
nication strategy followed by tourism destinations. It finds that com-
munication based on highly consistent messages contributes to in-
creasing brand equity. Third, the findings demonstrate the moderating
effect of message consistency on the relationship between positioning
strategy and CBDBE. When the positioning strategy is conveyed through
a consistent message, the two alternative tourism types (single vs.
multiple) present similar results in terms of the brand equity perceived
by the consumer. By contrast, in the case of the chosen positioning
strategy being conveyed via less consistent messages, the present work
shows that the brand equity perceived by the consumer is more positive
when the positioning strategy is based on one single type of tourism
than when it is based on various types.
2. Literature review
2.1. Brand equity as perceived by the consumer
According to Keller (1993, p.2), CBBE can be understood as “… the
differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the
marketing of the brand”. Positive, strong and unique associations are
labeled primary associations, and these include beliefs and attitudes
that encompass the perceived benefits of a given brand (Keller, 1993).
The majority of studies take the following to be dimensions of
CBDBE: (a) brand image, (2) brand quality, (3) brand knowledge, and
(4) brand loyalty (Herrero, San Martín, García de los Salmones, &
Collado, 2017; Im, Kim, Elliot, & Han, 2012; Pike, Bianchi, Kerr, &
Patti, 2010; Zavattaro, Daspit & Adams, 2015). Other authors add a
fifth dimension: perceived brand equity (Bianchi, Pike, & Lings, 2014;
Boo, Busser, & Baloglu, 2009; Pike & Bianchi, 2013).
At the more general level, academic research has tended to ap-
proach the study of CBBE as an overall evaluation (Yoo & Donthu,
2001; Yoo, Donthu & Lee, 2000). The measurement of CBBE from a
multidimensional and global perspective has been shown by various
studies to be a robust approach (Washburn & Plank, 2002). Recently,
Im et al. (2012) adapted CBBE scales for Korea as a tourist destination,
while Frías-Jamilena, Polo-Peña, and Rodríguez-Molina (2016) adapted
them for Spain as a destination. The latter authors found a consistent
correlation between the dimensions of brand equity and the overall
measure of this construct. A general perspective on CBDBE is now taken
to analyze the role played by positioning type and message consistency
in its formation.
2.2. Positioning strategy based on the destination's tourism type
The notion of positioning was first articulated on the popular level
in 1972, when it was strongly linked to advertising. Ries and Trout
(1981, p. 242) asserted that positioning was achieved “by manipulating
clients’ perceptions of reality”. This vision of positioning was later
broadened, in recognition that it is much more complex than mere
creative advertising.
In the specific context of tourism, Botha et al. (1999) were the first
to introduce the concept of destination positioning. The held that, ra-
ther than developing marketing plans on the basis of what destination
managers believed they should be offering, this was about identifying
the key characteristics that visitors had in mind and reinforcing these.
Other authors, such as Kotler, Haider, and Miller (1993), defined des-
tination positioning as the process of identifying how a destination
compares (regionally, nationally and internationally) with other desti-
nations that enjoy a stronger position or are more well-established.
Positioning has been found to be a source of competitive advantage
for organizations (Hooley et al., 2004; Porter, 1980). Indeed, many
academic researchers consider it to be one of the critical elements of
modern marketing management (Blankson & Kalafatis, 2004), as long-
M.A. Rodríguez-Molina, et al.
term success among firms and their products depends on how well they
are positioned in the market (Brooksbank, 1994).
Authors including Fill (1999) hold that successful positioning can
only be achieved by adopting a client-focused perspective and under-
standing how clients perceive the different products in a given class and
the importance they attach to certain attributes that can be grouped
into a single construct (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001).
If it is considered that: (1) the number of destinations a consumer
compares when making their selection is somewhere between two and
six (Crompton, 1992; Woodside & Sherrell, 1977); (2) there are very
few truly unique tourism products (Murphy & Pritchard, 1997); and (3)
many destinations offer similar characteristics (with the corresponding
risk that some destinations become mere goods that can easily be
substituted (Gilbert, 1990), then it is essential for destinations to know
how to deliver a successful positioning strategy if they wish to be
competitive.
Some authors hold that, for positioning to be effective, the range of
differentiated characteristics that are promoted should be limited
(Aaker & Shansby, 1982; Crompton et al., 1992). Similarly, Crompton
et al. (1992) note that positioning seeks to identify the perceptions of
potential visitors regarding the most striking attributes of the destina-
tion, to compare these with their perceptions of competitor destina-
tions’ attributes and to select only those that genuinely distinguish one
destination from another. It is these characteristics, once properly
promoted, that form the core of the marketing strategy. Positioning is
more successful when there are fewer differentiating attributes, as
presenting too many can result in a less clearly defined image
(Crompton et al., 1992). Later, Pike and Ryan (2004) found that ef-
fective positioning requires a succinct, focused and consistent message.
Woodside (1982) used the example of Nova Scotia to illustrate the use
of a particular conceptual focus to achieve effective positioning. This
focus is based on using the unique attributes of the destination to dif-
ferentiate it from its competitors. The author proposed that the key to
successful positioning is to find a match between the benefits offered by
the destination and those sought by an objective market when weighing
up whether to visit the destination in question (Crompton et al., 1992).
2.2.1. The effect of a positioning strategy based on tourism type on CBDBE
A number of previous studies have attempted to assess the impact of
a firm's positioning strategy. Some have found it to be effective for
company profitability (e.g. Blankson & Kalafatis, 2004; Porter, 1996).
However, the literature also identifies the need for more research into
the application of positioning strategies and their impact on business
performance (Blankson, Kalafatisy Ming-Sung Cheng, 2008:; Lindgreen,
Palmer, & Vanhamme, 2004).
In the context of tourism, the effect of a positioning strategy on
business results has been investigated in the airline industry. Here, a
differentiated position has been found to be the key to success. Fisher
(1991, pp.19–20) contends that “a differentiated position generates
high return on profits”. McAlexander et al. (1993) find that the selec-
tion of a positioning strategy presents a significant correlation with fi-
nancial performance (Blankson & Kalafatis, 2004). Yet despite this re-
cognition of the importance of positioning strategies, to date there have
been few studies on this topic (Gursoy, Chen, & Kim, 2005).
Another means of testing the effectiveness of the positioning
strategy conducted by a firm is via the consumer. On this point, Mayo
and Jarvis (1981) affirmed that ‘destination appeal’ is a combination of
the relative importance of the benefits for tourists and the perceived
capacity of the destination to deliver those benefits. The more a tourist
believes that a given destination can guarantee a certain set of ad-
vantages, the more appealing that destination will be to them and the
greater the chances of them selecting it as a potential place to visit.
Hence, tourist preferences (based on destination appeal) probably
constitute an influential factor in their ultimate choice of destination
(Chen & Uysal, 2002; Haahti, 1986; Hu & Ritchie, 1993), their sa-
tisfaction (Kozak & Rimmington, 1999; Mykletun et al., 2001), their
116
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 12 (2019) 114–124
revisit intention (Crompton et al., 1992; Kozak & Rimmington, 1999)
and their perception of the benefits (Woodside, 1982), as well as in
their role as influencer of opinions (Kozak & Rimmington, 1999). Pre-
vious studies also point to the connection between the concept of po-
sitioning and the destination brand: specifically in terms of image,
loyalty or brand equity (Cai, 2002; Gnoth, 1998; Williams & Palmer,
1999).
Given the relationship that has previously been established between
positioning and behavioral variables (Cai, 2002; Gnoth, 1998; Williams
& Palmer, 1999), and the studies that have shown how positioning is
more likely to be successful when it is based on a small number of
distinguishing characteristics (Aaker & Shansby, 1982; Crompton et al.,
1992), it is to be expected that, when the destination's positioning
strategy is based on a specific type of tourism (in which the differ-
entiating characteristics are thus also very specific), the consumer will
arrive at a more positive assessment of that destination's brand equity.
In contrast, when the destination opts for a positioning strategy based
on several tourism types (with a diverse range of topics and a greater
number of differentiating characteristics), this can heighten the possi-
bility of conveying a somewhat confused image of the destination. On
this basis, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. : A positioning strategy based on the attributes of one single
tourism type will generate significantly higher CBDBE than one based
on the attributes of multiple tourism types.
2.3. Message consistency within the IMC strategy
The IMC concept has gained increasing importance in both aca-
demic and professional spheres since the late 1980s (Kliatchko, 2008;
Muñoz-Leiva, Porcu & Del Barrio,-García, Gómez, & Molina, 2012;
Schultz, Kim, & Kang, 2014; Šeric, 2017). From its early days, the de-
finition of IMC has evolved from a relatively narrow vision centered
simply on coordination between the messages conveyed through the
different communication tools and media (Caywood et al., 1991;
Duncan & Everett, 1993) to a much broader vision that understands
communication more holistically and that operates at the whole-orga-
nization level (Cook, 2004; Duncan & Moriarty, 1998; Kliatchko, 2008).
Porcu, del Barrio-García, & Kitchen (2017; 694) define IMC as “the
stakeholder-centered interactive process of cross-functional planning
and alignment of organisational, analytical and communication pro-
cesses that allows for the possibility of continuous dialogue by con-
veying consistent and transparent messages via all media to foster long-
term profitable relationships that create value”. These authors contend
that this is a multidimensional concept comprising four dimensions:
message consistency, interactivity, stakeholder-centered strategic focus
and organisational alignment (Porcu et al., 2017). Of these dimensions,
the literature seems to concur that message consistency is the most
fundamental level and is a necessary condition for integrated commu-
nication to be achieved (Caywood et al., 1991; Duncan & Moriarty,
1998; Porcu et al., 2017). The literature alludes to message consistency
(which refers to the strategic coherence between the messages con-
veyed via different communication tools and media) by a number of
different names, including: one voice (Nowak & Phelps, 1994; Phelps &
Johnson, 1996; Porcu, Del Barrio-García, & Kitchen, 2012), common
communication message (Low, 2000), unified communications for con-
sistent message (Lee & Faber, 2007), strategic consistency (Duncan &
Moriarty, 1997), tactical coordination (Schultz & Schultz, 1998), com-
munication mix integration (Pickton, 2004) and message consistency
(Moriarty & Schultz, 2012; Porcu et al., 2017).
Implementing an IMC strategy enables organizations to ensure that
the messages they send out through different channels are well co-
ordinated and consistent, which undoubtedly benefits the effectiveness
of the communication. This approach may be even more relevant in
those sectors where services have very few physical components that
can be used for differentiation purposes (Elliott & Boshoff, 2008), such
M.A. Rodríguez-Molina, et al.
as in the case of tourism.
The tourism sector has very little literature devoted to examining
the role of IMC strategy on tourist responses, and the few studies that do
exist are largely descriptive or survey-based, and they do not set out to
analyze tourists' responses to certain levels of message consistency be-
tween different channels (Elliott & Boshoff, 2008; Skinner, 2005; Wang
et al., 2009; Šeric et al., 2015; Šerić, 2017; Šerić et al., 2014; Šerić & Gil-
Saura, 2011, 2012). For instance, Skinner (2005) examined whether the
messages communicated through different media by Wales were con-
sistent or not, Elliott and Boshoff (2008) took the case of tourism or-
ganizations in South Africa and analyzed the antecedents that con-
tributed to the success of an IMC strategy in terms of message
consistency, and Wang et al. (2009) explored the role of IMC on tour-
ists’ selection of a heritage destination.
2.3.1. Message consistency and CBDBE
According to the academic literature review, achieving consistency
across the messages received through different tools and communica-
tion media seems to be a fundamental condition for producing strong
brand associations (Delgado-Ballester et al., 2012) that lead to better
evaluations of brand equity (Šeric, 2017). In this regard, Keller (2009)
holds that firms’ efforts to integrate their communications will con-
tribute to achieving high brand equity values, because these commu-
nications will strengthen the relationship between client and brand.
Other authors, such as Madhavaram, Badrinarayanan, and McDonald
(2005) and Anantachart (2004) assert that integration of marketing
communications has a positive effect on consumer memory and
awareness, on brand evaluation and attitudes and on brand image itself
– all of which are dimensions of brand equity.
In the area of tourism, Šerić and Gil-Saura (2011, 2012) and Šeric
et al. (2014) found there was a significant relationship between per-
ceived message consistency among tourists staying at hotels and brand
image, perceived brand quality and loyalty toward the hotel brand.
More recently, Šeric et al. (2015) found that tourists' perception of
consistency exerted a significant effect on their satisfaction. And in a
very recent work, Šerić (2017), in line with his previous works, iden-
tified a significant relationship between tourists' perception of hotels’
communication consistency in general and of their brand equity.
Therefore, in light of the literature review, the following hypothesis
is proposed:
H2: A communication strategy based on message consistency will
generate significantly higher CBDBE than one not based on message
consistency.
2.4. The moderating effect of message consistency on the relationship
between positioning and CBDBE
It can be deduced, then, that organizations' efforts to integrate their
communications by using messages that are consistent, regardless of
particular methods or media, make a positive contribution to the for-
mation of brand equity. However, the literature to date has not ana-
lyzed the extent to which a message consistency strategy may moderate
the effect that the type of positioning strategy used by a destination
exerts on its CBDBE. For the present work, schema theory (Bobrow &
Norman, 1975) is considered a suitable conceptual framework for this
analysis. Schema theory plays an important role in explaining how in-
dividuals process the new (non-congruent) stimuli they receive and
how they integrate the new information alongside their previous
mental schema. When individuals receive relevant new information,
they compare it to their previous mental schema and generate a re-
sponse in terms of memory and cognitive elaboration (Lee & Faber,
2007). When that information does not fit with their previous schema –
that is, it is incongruous information (Mandler, 1982) – cognitive ela-
boration is activated, leading to a process of counter-argumentation and
memory activation (Heckler & Childers, 1992). In contrast, when the
new information fits their previous schema (congruous information),
117
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 12 (2019) 114–124
the counter-argumentation mechanisms are not activated, there is low
cognitive elaboration and it is more likely that positive affect will be
generated (d’Astous & Chartier, 2000).
Therefore, taking into account the principles of schema theory and
that positioning based on one type of tourism is found to be clearer, it is
to be expected that, when a tourist perceives a lack of congruence
(consistency) in the messages they receive via different communication
channels, this will activate greater cognitive elaboration. This, in turn,
will lead them to focus their attention on the arguments of the message
and respond more positively to positioning strategies based the attri-
butes of one single tourism type (that is, clearer positioning) than to
positioning strategies based on the attributes of multiple types of
tourism (more dispersed positioning). In contrast, when the messages
are congruent, in line with an IMC strategy, this will activate a rela-
tively low level of cognitive elaboration. In turn, this will give rise to a
more superficial processing of the information, which will prevent the
tourist from fully appreciating the benefits of a positioning strategy
based on a single tourism type, compared to one based on several types
of tourism.
In light of these theoretical considerations, the following hypothesis
is proposed:
H3: Message consistency moderates the effect of positioning based
on the attributes of one single tourism type on CBDBE.
H3a: In the case of a communication strategy that is not based on
message consistency, positioning based on the attributes of one single
tourism type will generate significant higher CBDBE than positioning
based on the attributes of multiple tourism types.
H3b: In the case of a communication strategy that is based on
message consistency, positioning based on the attributes of one single
tourism type will not generate significant differences in CBDBE, com-
pared to positioning based on the attributes of multiple tourism types.
3. Methodology
Data-collection was undertaken by means of experimentation, ma-
nipulating two factors: destination positioning strategy (two levels –
single tourism type vs. multiple tourism types); and message con-
sistency between two different communication tools (two levels – high
vs. low consistency). The methodology was therefore based on a be-
tween-subjects full factorial design, with four treatments. The depen-
dent variable was CBDBE for Spain. Spain was chosen as the tourist
destination for the experiment because, in the last few years, it has
consistently featured among the top five destinations in the world by
number of visitors (OMT, 2016).
3.1. Sample and procedure
To participate in the study, individuals were required to fulfill two
conditions: they had to be of legal age; and they had to be first-time
visitors to Spain (so as to avoid the potential effect of past experience on
the dependent variable). The target population chosen for this purpose
was the US, which accounts for a fairly low percentage of Spain's
tourists (in 2016, the country represented just 2.9% of total arrivals to
Spain) (ITE, 2017). Working with individuals who had a homogeneous
level of experience of the destination under study, but who also pre-
sented the income level and inclination to travel necessary to make
them potential tourists, was an effective means of controlling the effect
of extraneous variables that could otherwise have undermined the in-
ternal validity of the experiment. This approach also provides greater
external validity.
Participants were selected by means of an Internet user panel
managed by Survey Sampling Spain S.L. (part of Survey Sampling
International, or SSI). The rationale for this choice was two-fold. First,
SSI has won several awards for its results and rigor in the market re-
search field. The firm has over 30 offices in over 20 countries; it has 17
million panelists from 90 countries on its books; and, in 2016 alone, it
M.A. Rodríguez-Molina, et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 12 (2019) 114–124

Table 1 Gan (2018).

Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. In the case of positioning based on a single tourism type, the video
Source: US Office of Travel & Tourism Industries (2014) and blog presented images and attributes that defined the most relevant
Variables Sample Population aspects sought by consumers when undertaking sun-and-sand tourism
(beaches and hotels). The video format emulated those used by the
Categories % Categories %a public bodies charged with promoting Spain as a destination inter-
nationally. The messages in the video conveyed attributes such as
Gender Male 47.26 Male 49.00
Female 52.74 Female 51.00 ‘beautiful landscapes’, ‘magnificent’, ‘amazing’ and ‘stunning’ when
Age 18 to 29 20.52 18 to 29 21.90 referring to the beaches, and attributes such as ‘prestigious’, ‘excep-
30 to 44 37.44 30 to 44 27.90 tional’ and ‘bearing the hallmark of professionalism’ when referring to
45 to 65 40.80 45 to 64 38.40
the ‘good range of hotels’. In contrast, for positioning based on multiple
Over 65 1.24 Over 65 11.80
Employment status Employed 56.59 Employed 58.90 tourism types, the video and travel blog showed images and attributes
Not employed 43.41 Not employed 41.10 that defined the most relevant aspects sought by consumers when un-
dertaking each of these different types of tourism. In this case, the
messages were focused on the ‘beautiful landscapes’ and ‘good range of
successfully completed 40 million surveys across 60,000 projects. By hotels’ (sun-and-sand tourism), the ‘historical and cultural interest’
controlling the characteristics of people within the sample, SSI has (cultural tourism) and the ‘lovely natural resources and leisure activ-
created an online sample blend that is consistent when measured by ities’ (rural tourism).
comparison with external benchmarks, including telephone sample To ensure a correct selection of these differential attributes of
studies. Second, the panel comprises over 7 million users in the US, 18 Spain's tourism offer, a pretest was conducted among 105 native
years of age or above, with information on the panelists. Hence, the English speakers, who were asked to indicate the importance of a series
target population can be selected with great accuracy, ensuring sample of attributes in the destination. The average rating for all the attributes
representativeness, which is reflected in the population defined for the under consideration was over 5 out of a possible 7.
present study (see Table 1). Message consistency. Here, too, two alternatives were applied. In one
The firm contacted participants by email, inviting them to take part version, the information conveyed by the video coincided with the in-
in a research project to discover the perceptions of international tourists formation narrated by the blogger – that is, the message was consistent
regarding Spain as a tourist destination. The invitation email contained across both media. In the other version, the information conveyed by
a link to take respondents to an intranet providing access to the ques- the video did not match the information narrated by the blogger, thus
tionnaire and experimental stimuli. making the message inconsistent. It was decided to manipulate message
There were three phases in the overall procedure. First, prior to consistency as this is the most fundamental level of integrated com-
exposing participants to the stimuli, data was collected on the in- munication and is linked to the strategic coherence of the messages
dividual's level of knowledge about Spain and the image they held of conveyed via different tools and media aimed at positioning the brand
the country. Second, one of the four treatments was randomly assigned clearly (one sound, one sight) (Caywood et al., 1991; Duncan &
to each of the respondents. All of these treatments involved a promo- Moriarty, 1998; Schultz & Schultz, 1998). This also the only dimension
tional video about Spain as a tourist destination and a travel blog, in of IMC that consumers can actually perceive (Ewing, 2009; Schultz
which the blogger related their experience of their last holiday in Spain. et al., 2014). This manipulation of the message as a dimension of IMC is
The individuals were required to watch the video from start to finish a new addition to the literature and, it can be argued, constitutes the
and spend at least 1 min reading the blog (these aspects were con- optimal means of deriving conclusions about the effect of different le-
trolled). Finally, the respondent was asked to complete a questionnaire vels of destination message consistency on tourist responses, and,
that included the dependent variable, experimental manipulation therefore, examining its moderating role in the effect of positioning
checks, attitudes toward the video message and the blog message, and a type.
series of sociodemographic variables covering gender, age and em- To ensure that the experimental stimuli had been designed cor-
ployment status. rectly, another pretest was conducted among a sample of 114 tourists
The final sample comprised 804 individuals. The number of cases in from the UK, who had never visited Spain before. The measures used in
each of the four treatments was very similar (between 199 and 206). this pretest were the same as those in the main experiment for the
The sociodemographic characteristics of the sample largely match the manipulation checks, as recommended by Perdue and Summers (1986)
general profile of US tourists, as established by the US Office of Travel & (see section on measurement scales). The results confirmed there were
Tourism Industries (see Table 1). significant differences between the two positionings (Mone = 1.81,
Mmultiple = 3.50, p = 0.00), and between the two levels of message
3.2. 3.2. independent variables consistency (Mlowconsistency = 4.87, Mhighconsistency = 5.30, p = 0.01).
The manipulation of the experimental stimuli was thus confirmed to be
To manipulate the positioning of the destination and message con- correct.
sistency in the experiment, a bespoke, professionally-designed promo-
tional video and travel blog were used. 3.3. Dependent variable and other measures
Destination positioning. This variable was manipulated using the
images and information shown to the tourist about the destination in Dependent variable. The experiment used CBDBE as the dependent
the video and blog. Two alternatives were applied: (1) positioning variable. To measure this, a four-item, seven-point Likert scale devel-
based on one single type of tourism, displaying images and information oped by Yoo and Donthu (2001) and applied to the tourism sector by Im
exclusively about sun-and-sand tourism; and (2) positioning based on et al. (2012) was used. The four items were: (1) It makes sense to choose
three types of tourism – images and information on sun-and-sand, this destination rather than another one even if they are similar; (2)
cultural and rural tourism. The two alternatives were added on the basis Even if there is another destination with the same characteristics, I
that Spain has historically been positioned as a sun-and-sand destina- prefer this one; (3) If there is another destination as good as this one, I
tion, but in recent years the country has endeavored to reposition itself still prefer this one; and (4) If there is another destination, no different
as a destination offering several types of tourism. This move is reflected to this one, it seems more intelligent to choose the destination I'm in
in the 2020 Spanish Tourism Plan (Ministry for Industry, Energy and now (Im et al., 2012; Yoo and Donthu, 2001). This global measure of
Commerce, 2007) and in Pack (2008) and Lascu, Manrai, Manrai, and brand equity presents a high level of correlation with other scales

118
M.A. Rodríguez-Molina, et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 12 (2019) 114–124

Table 2
Convergent validity of the scales.
Latent variables Observed variables Coefficients SE Z P(> |Z|) Standardized coefficients ρ AVE

Previous knowledge know1 1.00 1.67 0.91 – – 0.89 0.81

know2 0.97 0.04 24.68 0.00 0.89
Previous image image1 1.00 1.35 0.80 – – 0.76 0.61
image2 0.94 0.06 16.02 0.00 0.76
Attitude toward message (video) video1 1.00 1.06 0.89 – – 0.96 0.76
video2 0.99 0.03 34.33 0.00 0.87
video3 1.06 0.03 40.34 0.00 0.88
video4 1.06 0.03 33.66 0.00 0.85
video5 1.08 0.03 33.32 0.00 0.87
video6 1.02 0.03 32.40 0.00 0.88
video7 0.95 0.04 26.94 0.00 0.85
video8 1.07 0.03 34.70 0.00 0.88
Attitude toward message (blog) blog1 1.00 1.17 0.90 – – 0.97 0.81
blog2 1.01 0.02 41.54 0.00 0.89
blog3 1.07 0.03 38.85 0.00 0.90
blog4 0.98 0.03 32.86 0.00 0.89
blog5 1.04 0.03 39.17 0.00 0.90
blog6 1.05 0.03 42.06 0.00 0.92
blog7 0.98 0.03 36.78 0.00 0.89
blog8 1.10 0.03 37.48 0.00 0.91
Message consistency (manipulation check) consist1 1.00 1.07 0.83 – – 0.94 0.75
consist2 1.08 0.04 26.22 0.00 0.89
consist3 1.14 0.05 25.66 0.00 0.90
consist4 1.05 0.05 22.19 0.00 0.86
consist5 1.01 0.05 22.44 0.00 0.85
Perceived brand equity beq1 1.00 1.20 0.87 – – 0.90 0.70
beq2 1.04 0.03 33.79 0.00 0.91
beq3 1.03 0.03 32.70 0.00 0.91
beq4 0.68 0.05 14.55 0.00 0.61

measuring this concept in terms of its dimensions (Frías-Jamilena et al.,
2016).
Experimental manipulation checks. To ensure that the factors were
being correctly manipulated, the following measures were taken: (1)
one item on a unipolar Stapel scale, up to ± 7 for the destination po-
sitioning: sun-and-sand tourism versus a diverse range of tourism types
(sun-and-sand; cultural; and rural); (2) a five-item, seven-point Likert
scale adapted from previous works (Speed & Thompson, 2000) for
message consistency: (i) There is a logical connection between the video
spot and the blog post; (ii) The image of Spain conveyed by the video
and the image of Spain conveyed by the blog post are similar; (iii) The
video spot and the blog post fit well together; (iv) The video spot and
the blog convey similar things; (v) The information presented in both
the formats makes sense to me.
Control variables. To ensure the experimentally-manipulated factors
are correctly linked to the dependent variable, two control variables
were used: previous knowledge of the destination, and previous desti-
nation image (Malhotra, 2010). Both variables were measured prior to
the subjects' exposure to the treatment, as recommended in the litera-
ture (Keppel, 1991; Kirk, 1995; Perdue & Summers, 1986). The degree
of knowledge of the destination was measured using two items (‘I
consider myself to be highly knowledgeable about Spain’ and ‘I consider
myself to be something of an expert on Spain’) and a seven-point Likert
scale, as per those used in other studies (Muehling, Stoltman, & Mishra,
1990). Previous destination image was also measured using two items
(‘The image I have of Spain is as good as, or even better than, that of
other similar destinations’ and ‘The overall image of Spain is very po-
sitive’) and a seven-point Likert scale, also used by other authors
(García et al., 2012).
Confounding checks. One important issue to consider regarding the
experimental procedure was that the messages may not have been
perceived in the same manner in each of the treatments. Therefore, to
ensure that the channel type was not influencing how the information
was perceived, both attitude toward the promotional video message
and attitude toward the blog message were measured. The scales used
for these two variables were similar, consisting of eight items on a
seven-point semantic differential scale (bad–good, unfavorable–favor-
able, uninteresting–interesting, uninformative–informative, not use-
ful–useful, dislike–like, not at all credible–credible, and un-
convincing–convincing), adapted from previous works (MacKenzie &
Lutz, 1989; Morimoto & Trimble, 2012).
Sociodemographic variables. In the final part of the questionnaire,
respondents were asked to provide a number of sociodemographic
variables: gender, age and employment status. Age was measured in
four intervals. Employment was initially captured in six categories (in
paid work; unemployed; student; retired; taking care of the home; and
other), but this was subsequently recodified into just two: employed (in
paid work) and not employed (covering the remaining categories) (see
Table 1).
4. Results
To test the proposed hypotheses, an ANCOVA covariance analysis
was undertaken, with CBDBE as the dependent variable, and destina-
tion positioning and message consistency as the independent variables.
First, however, it needed to be shown that the scales were valid and
reliable, that there was no bias in the sample selection and that the
effect exerted on the dependent variable was uncontaminated by the
messages created when designing the experimental stimuli.
4.1. Validation of the scales
The multi-item scales were validated using confirmatory factorial
analysis (CFA). To this end, a model with six latent variables was em-
ployed (previous knowledge and image of the destination; attitudes
toward the messages conveyed the video and the blog; perceptions of
the degree of message consistency; and brand equity as perceived by the
tourist), these being correlated with each other. Robust maximum
likelihood (RML) was chosen as the estimation method, as the variables
being analyzed did not follow a multivariate normal distribution
(b1p = 235.85, p = 0.00; b2p = 1708.86, p = 0.00; om-
nibus = 19,596.66, p = 0.00) (Bollen, 1989). The results showed that

119
M.A. Rodríguez-Molina, et al.
the fit of the model was adequate (Normed χ2 = 1.84, GFI = 0.97,
AGFI = 0.96, CFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.03), albeit the
Satorra-Bentler statistic was significant, due to its sensitivity to sample
size (χ2SB = 664.45, df = 362, p = 0.00).
All of the non-standardized coefficients were significantly different
from zero, and all the standardized coefficients were above 0.70,
meaning that individual reliability was over 0.50, with the exception of
the last CBDBE item, whose standardized coefficient was equal to 0.61
(see Table 2). Following the recommendations of Hair, Hult, Ringle,
and Sarstedt (2014), it was decided to maintain this item, as the stan-
dardized coefficient was between 0.40 and 0.70, and composite relia-
bility (ρ) and average variance extracted (AVE) were within the values
recommended by the literature (ρ > 0.70, AVE > 0.50), hence its
elimination would affect the validity of the content. For the rest of the
latent variables, the indicators for composite reliability and variance
extracted were also above the values recommended by the literature
(see Table 2).
It can therefore be affirmed that the scales are reliable and possess
convergent validity. They also present discriminant validity, as the AVE
in all cases was higher than the square of the correlation between each
pair of latent variables (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) (see Table 3).
With the multi-item scales shown to possess convergent and dis-
criminant validity, the scales were averaged for each participant.
4.2. Sample selection bias
One means of checking that the random assignation of individuals
to each of the treatments was effective was to analyze whether there
was any sample selection bias between the groups. Association tests
between the treatments and the sociodemographic variables (gender,
age and employment) were therefore conducted. None of the test results
was significant (gender: χ2 = 4.10, df = 3, p = 0.25; age: χ2 = 6.11,
df = 6, p = 0.41; employment: χ2 = 6.43, df = 3, p = 0.09), hence it
can be concluded that the randomization of the individuals in each of
the treatments was effective.
4.2.1. Confounding checks
One particular concern regarding the design of the experimental
stimuli is that the messages may not be perceived in the same manner,
which could potentially confound the research results. In other words,
despite the fact that the messages were carefully designed, it is possible
that some individuals would see them more positively or negatively,
compared to other treatments. To rule out this possibility, two ANOVA
were carried out (one for the video and one for the blog). The depen-
dent variable was attitude toward the message in each medium, and the
independent variables were the factors manipulated in the experiment.
The results demonstrated that there was no relationship between the
attitude toward the message conveyed by the video and the treatments
(β = 0.04; F = 1.00; p = 0.32). Nor was the relationship between at-
titude toward the message conveyed by the blog and the treatments
significant (β = 0.04; F = 0.96; p = 0.33). It can be concluded, then,
that the manipulation of the independent variables did not affect the
respondents’ perception of the message.
Table 3
Discriminant validity of the scales.
Latent variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Previous knowledge (1) 0.81
Previous image (2) 0.13 0.61
Attitude toward the message (video) (3) 0.00 0.18 0.76
Attitude toward the message (blog) (4) 0.00 0.18 0.74 0.81
Message consistency (5) 0.00 0.15 0.45 0.54 0.75
Perceived brand equity (6) 0.11 0.16 0.25 0.30 0.25
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 12 (2019) 114–124
4.2.2. Experimental manipulation check
To demonstrate that the manipulated factors produced the desired
effects, an ANOVA was conducted to compare the averages for each
factor. The results showed that the difference between averages for
positioning type was significant (Mone = 0.89, Mmulitple = 2.67,
p = 0.00), as was the difference between averages for message con-
sistency (Mlowconsistency = 5.35, Mhighconsistency = 5.81, p = 0.00). These
results indicate that the manipulation of the factors was correctly per-
formed.
4.2.3. Concomitant variables
To control the effect of the factors on the dependent variable, the
covariables ‘previous knowledge’ and ‘previous image’ of the destina-
tion were used, prior to exposing the participants to the experimental
stimuli. According to Kirk (1995), the choice of a covariable is appro-
priate if it meets the following requirements: (1) it is related to the
dependent variable; and (2) it is not related to the independent vari-
ables (which is generally the case when they are measured prior to
exposure to the stimuli, as in the present study).
To test the first requirement, the correlation between brand equity,
prior knowledge and prior image was calculated. There was found to be
a significant correlation in both cases (prior knowledge: r = 0.32,
t = 9.45, p = 0.00; prior image: r = 0.33, t = 9.97, p = 0.00), hence
the first criterion was fulfilled. To test the second requirement, two
ANOVA were conducted (one for each covariable), with the covariable
used as the dependent variable, and the manipulated factors used as the
independent variables. The results showed that there was no significant
relationship between the treatments and each of the covariables (prior
knowledge: β = 0.05, F = 0.77, p = 0.38; prior image: β = 0.05,
F = 0.75, p = 0.39).
4.2.4. Testing the proposed hypotheses
In light of these results, the research hypotheses were tested using
an ANCOVA. The dependent variable was CBDBE; the independent
variables were destination positioning and message consistency; and
the covariables were previous knowledge and previous image of the
destination. Including the two covariables made it possible to reduce
the sum of the squared errors by 15.5% and increase the variance ex-
plained of CBDBE by over 107% (without covariables: R2adj = 0.125;
with covariables: R2adj = 0.258). This demonstrates the suitability of
both to the analysis.
The two covariables were significant and both presented a positive
coefficient (previous knowledge: β = 0.15, t = 6.76, p = 0.00; previous
image: β = 0.19, t = 7.64, p = 0.00). This means that the higher the
previous knowledge or image of the destination, the higher its CBDBE.
The main effects of destination positioning and message consistency
were also significant (see Table 4). The average for positioning based on
one single tourism type was greater than that for that of positioning
based on multiple types (Mone = 5.09, Mmultiple = 4.81, t = 3.91,
p = 0.00), while the average for highly consistent messages was greater
than that of low-consistency messages (Mlowconsistency = 4.61,
Mhighconsistency = 5.29, t = 9.38, p = 0.00). Hypotheses H1 and H2
therefore find empirical support. It should be noted that these two main
effects should be interpreted on the basis that the interaction between
destination positioning and message consistency is significant (see
Table 4
ANCOVA for perceived brand equity.
(6) Effect Df SS MS F value
Positioning 1 15.87 15.87 15.27 0.00
Consistency 1 91.36 91.36 87.90 0.00
Positioning x Consistency 1 5.92 5.92 5.69 0.02
Previous knowledge of destination 1 47.47 47.47 45.67 0.00
Previous image of destination 1 60.68 60.68 58.37 0.00
0.70 Error 798 829.46 1.04
120
M.A. Rodríguez-Molina, et al.
Fig. 1. Interaction between destination positioning and message consistency.
Table 4). Just as predicted in H3, when the message was presented with
a low level of consistency across different communication channels,
positioning based on one single tourism type generated higher brand
equity than positioning based on multiple tourism types (Mone = 4.84,
Mmultiple = 4.39, Tukey's test = 4.43, p = 0.00). However, when the
message was presented highly consistently, there were no significant
differences between positioning based on a single tourism type and that
based on multiple types (Mone = 5.35, Mmultiple = 5.24, Tukey's
test = 1.08, p = 0.70 (see Fig. 1). The findings therefore confirm H3.
The extent to which we can be confident about these results is
conditional on the underlying assumptions of the ANCOVA being ful-
filled: (1) homogeneity of the error variance between treatments; (2)
normal residuals; and (3) homogeneity of the covariate slopes between
treatments. To test the first assumption, Levene's test was applied, the
result being not significant (F = 1.90, p = 0.13). It was therefore con-
cluded that the variance of the residuals was homogeneous between
groups, and that this criterion was fulfilled. The Jarque-Bera test was
undertaken to test the second assumption. This, too, produced a non-
significant result (ajb = 1.30, p = 0.51). The residuals followed a
normal distribution, as assumed in the ANCOVA. Finally, to test the
third criterion, a comparison was made between a model in which the
covariate slopes were homogenous, and one in which they varied. Once
again, the results were not significant (F = 0.66, p = 0.68). It can
therefore be confirmed that the covariate slopes were homogenous
between the groups under analysis.
5. Discussion of results and conclusions
For tourism managers, making a destination competitive and ap-
pealing to tourists is a primary objective. The literature highlights that
achieving greater brand equity equates to achieving competitive ad-
vantage (Pike & Page, 2014). The present investigation aimed to es-
tablish the most suitable positioning strategy for generating greater
value for the tourist, such that they decide to choose a given destina-
tion. More specifically, the work set out to identify the positioning
approach best suited to generating greater CBDBE. To this end, an ex-
periment was designed that presented two possible positioning strate-
gies for a tourist destination: (1) based on one single type of tourism
(that with which it was traditionally associated); and (2) based on a
diverse offer with multiple types of tourism. The study examined which
of these alternative positioning strategies generated a more positive
perception among tourists, regarding the brand equity of the
121
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 12 (2019) 114–124
destination in question. It also sought to establish whether this per-
ception is moderated by the degree of consistency across the different
communication tools used by tourist destinations. This variable was
manipulated into two levels: (1) high level of consistency and (2) low
level of consistency between the information conveyed by a promo-
tional video and that contained in a blog about the destination.
The results offer several contributions to the literature on the for-
mation of brand equity for a tourist destination. First, the findings show
that a positioning strategy based on tourism type exerts a significant
effect on CBDB, reinforcing the conclusions derived in the literature on
positioning strategies. The literature demonstrates that such a strategy
affects various dimensions of brand equity, such as image and loyalty
toward the brand, and even brand equity (Cai, 2002; Gnoth, 1998;
Williams & Palmer, 1999). The findings of the present study indicate
that the effect of the positioning strategy on CBDBE is greater when it is
based on one single type of tourism than when it is based on different
types. The single-type approach captures only those attributes that
emphasize the most characteristic features of the tourism type in
question. Therefore, the results of the present investigation are in line
with those of previous studies, which indicate that positioning is more
successful if the range of differentiating characteristics that are pro-
moted is narrow (Aaker & Shansby, 1982; Crompton et al., 1992), and
that a high number of differentiating attributes can lead to a less well-
defined image. As Pike and Ryan (2004) assert, effective positioning
requires a succinct, focused and consistent message – that is, posi-
tioning that, in the present case, is based on one single type of tourism.
Second, this study highlights the importance of the particular
communication strategy followed by tourism destinations. Although
several previous works illustrate the effect of IMC on CBDBE (Keller,
2009; Šeric & Gil, 2015), the present investigation builds on the existing
tourism IMC literature by focusing on the consistency of messages be-
tween different communication channels and manipulating this factor
in an experimental design. The work demonstrates that communication
based on highly consistent messages contributes to increasing brand
equity. This finding is in line with the results of other studies from the
hospitality field regarding the significant effect of IMC on brand equity
(Šeric et al., 2015; Šeric, 2017). However, the aims of these other works
and their methodologies differ notably from those of the present re-
search. These previous studies explore new territory in researching IMC
in the tourism context, particularly the hotel sector, but they are limited
in that they measure IMC using only a selection of items taken from the
much more extensive scale proposed by Lee and Faber (2007), and their
M.A. Rodríguez-Molina, et al.
samples comprised hotel directors rather than consumers.
Third, the present work demonstrates the moderating effect of
message consistency on the relationship between positioning strategy
and CBDBE. When the positioning strategy is conveyed through a
consistent message, the alternative presents similar results in terms of
the brand equity perceived by the consumer. This suggests that,
whichever positioning strategy the tourist destination chooses to im-
plement, it will exert a positive effect on CBDBE so long as the com-
munication strategy is based on a consistent message. In contrast, in the
case of the chosen positioning strategy being conveyed via less con-
sistent messages, the present work shows that the brand equity per-
ceived by the consumer is more positive when the positioning strategy
is based on one single type of tourism than when it is based on various
types. By not applying message consistency, positioning based on the
single-tourism-type strategy therefore heightens perceptions CBDBE.
Finally, the contribution made to the tourism literature by the
present investigation is highly original. Some works to date have ex-
amined the positioning strategies already used by destinations, to de-
termine which ones may be the most effective for the firm
(McAlexander et al., 1993), while other studies have addressed this
question from the consumer perspective (Chen & Uysal, 2002; Mykletun
et al., 2001). However, none of these previous studies conducts ex-
perimental manipulation to control two different positioning strategies
and establish which is the most effective, based on consumer percep-
tions of destination brand equity. Nor do they apply message con-
sistency within the destination's IMC strategy as a moderator. Fur-
thermore, the works to date have concentrated on the degree of
communication integration achieved by organizations (hotels) through
their communication strategies, either from the perspective of the or-
ganizations themselves or measured in terms of tourist perceptions. The
present study therefore constitutes a significant advancement in the
IMC literature.
6. Professional implications and potential research themes for the
future
The tourist destination market is particularly competitive as so
many destinations offer the same type of tourism with very similar
characteristics. Managers must therefore analyze the strengths and
weaknesses of their destinations and compare them to those of their
competitors, knowing that the tourist will select the destination that
most closely matches their needs and will thus perceive it to have
greater brand equity.
In this context, some destinations that have traditionally been as-
sociated with one type of tourism above all others (such as sun-and-
sand, cultural or rural tourism) are starting to consider changing their
image, to reposition themselves as offering various types of tourism.
The results of the present investigation therefore offer valuable im-
plications for tourist destination managers. Positioning based on one
single tourism type is found to be more effective than that based on
various types. The consumer perceives greater CBDBE if the destina-
tion's positioning is clearly based on the type of tourism that has come
to characterize a given destination. However, if those charged with
promoting destinations can successfully guarantee a high level of
message consistency across the different communication channels, an
alternative positioning strategy that embraces a range of tourism types
becomes feasible. Therefore, destination managers should invest in
careful communications planning throughout the various channels over
which they exert some control, combined with active listening to the
messages conveyed via channels they do not control. This will enable
them to identify in good time any communications that may conflict
with the desired messages and take appropriate action.
Achieving message consistency across different media enables des-
tinations to reach their target markets with persuasive information.
Importantly, if they opt to offer different various types of tourism,
through these consistent messages they can attract different market
122
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 12 (2019) 114–124
segments comprising tourists interested in sun-and-sand, cultural and
rural tourism. What is more, those tourists who are attracted to all three
types of tourism may choose to repeat their visit to such a destination
and experience sun-and-sand and rural tourism there, for example, on
different occasions.
In short, tourism destinations can successfully increase their num-
bers of tourists by implementing a positioning strategy based on dif-
ferent types of tourism, providing they use consistent messages in the
information they present when promoting their offer.
As with all studies, the present investigation is shaped by certain
limitations that can point to potential future research themes. First, the
work exclusively examines the perception of brand equity among US
tourists. Future studies could use samples of tourists of other nation-
alities and also add the moderating effect of culture to their analysis.
Second, the present research is based on the case of Spain in its ex-
periment design, as this destination fulfilled the requirement to present
a broad offer of different tourism types. However, future studies should
analyze the extent to which the use of other tourist destinations with
different features (in terms of geography, culture, or tourism offer) may
affect the findings. A further limitation of the present work is that
message consistency was manipulated by means of two different com-
munication channels, namely a YouTube video and a travel blog. In the
future, it would be interesting to apply other communication media to
examine the effect of message consistency. For example, the use of
other social networking sites that are more focused on content-gen-
eration (such as Facebook) or micro-blogging (Twitter) could help
confirm the findings of the present study.
Acknowledgement
Study carried out thanks to financing received from research project
P11 SEJ-8104 by the Junta de Andalucía and Projects ECO2012-39217
and ECO2015-65306-R by the Ministerio de Economía y
Competitividad.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.03.010.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York, NY: Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York, NY: Free Press.
Aaker, D. A., & Shansby, J. (1982). Positioning your product. Business Horizons, 25,
56–62.
Anantachart, S. (2004). Integrated marketing communications and market planning:
Their implications to brand equity building. Journal of Promotion Management, 11(1),
101–125.
Andreu, L., Bigne, J. E., & Cooper, C. (2000). Projected and perceived image of Spain as a
tourist destination for British travellers. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 9(4),
47–67.
Bastos, W., & Levy, S. J. (2012). A history of the concept of branding: Practice and theory.
Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, 4, 347–368.
Bianchi, C., Pike, S., & Lings, I. (2014). Investigating attitudes towards three South
American destinations in an emerging long haul market using a model of consumer-
based brand equity (CBBE). Tourism Management, 42, 215–223.
Blankson, C., & Kalafatis, S. P. (2004). The development and validation of a scale mea-
suring consumer/customer-derived generic typology of positioning strategies. Journal
of Marketing Management, 20, 5–43.
Blankson, C., Kalafatis, S. P., & Ming-Sung Cheng, J. (2008). Impact of positioning stra-
tegies on corporate performance. Journal of Advertising Research, March, 106–122.
Bobrow, D. G., & Norman, D. A. (1975). Some principles of memory schemata. In D. G.
Bobrow, & A. Collins (Eds.). Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive
science (pp. 131–149). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
Boo, S., Busser, J., & Baloglu, S. (2009). A model of customer-based brand equity and its
application to multiple destinations. Tourism Management, 30, 219–231.
Botha, C., Crompton, J. L., & Kim, S. (1999). Developing a revised competitive position
for Sun/Lost City, South Africa. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 341–352.
Brooksbank, R. (1994). The anatomy of marketing positioning strategy. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 12(4), 10–14.
M.A. Rodríguez-Molina, et al.
Cai, L. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism Research,
29, 720–742.
Calantone, R. J., Di Bendetto, C. A., Hakam, A., & Bojanic, D. C. (1989). Multiple mul-
tinational tourism positioning using correspondence analysis. Journal of Travel
Research, 28(2), 25–32.
Caywood, C., Schultz, D., & Wang, P. (1991). Integrated marketing communications: A
survey of national goods advertisers. Bloomington. Medill School of Journalism.
Northwestern University.
Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (2002). Market positioning analysis: A hybrid approach. Annals of
Tourism Research, 29(4), 987–1003.
Claveria, O., & Poluzzi, A. (2017). Positioning and clustering of the world's top tourist
destinations by means of dimensionality reduction techniques for categorical data.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6, 22–32.
Cook, W. (2004). IMC's fuzzy picture. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(1), 1–2.
Crompton, J. (1992). Structure of vacation destination choice sets. Annals of Tourism
Research, 19, 420–434.
Crompton, J. L., Fakeye, P. C., & Lue, C. (1992). Positioning: The example of the Lower
Rio Grande Valley in the winter long stay destination market. Journal of Travel
Research, 31, 20–26.
D'Astous, A., & Chartier, F. (2000). A study of factors affecting consumer evaluations and
memory of product placements in movies. Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising, 22(2), 31–40.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Navarro, A., & Sicilia, M. (2012). Revitalising brands through
communication messages: The role of brand familiarity. European Journal of
Marketing, 46(1/2), 31–51.
Dosen, D. O., Vranesevic, T., & Prebezac, D. (1998). The importance of branding in the
development of marketing strategy of Croatia as tourist destination. Acta Turistica,
10(2), 93–182.
Duncan, T., & Everett, S. E. (1993). Client perceptions of integrated marketing commu-
nications. Journal of Advertising Research, 33(3), 30–39.
Duncan, T., & Moriarty, S. E. (1997). Driving brand value: Using integrated marketing to
manage profitable stakeholder relationships. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Duncan, T., & Moriarty, S. E. (1998). A communication-based marketing model for
managing relationships. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 1–13.
Elliott, R., & Boshoff, C. (2008). The influence of business orientations in small tourism
businesses on the success of integrated marketing communication. Management
Dynamics, 17(4), 32–45.
Evren, S., & Kozak, N. (2018). Competitive positioning of winter tourism destinations: A
comparative analysis of demand and supply sides perspectives: Cases from Turkey.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 9, 247–257.
Ewing, M. T. (2009). Integrated marketing communications measurement and evaluation.
Journal of Marketing Communications, 15(2/3), 103–117.
Fill, C. (1999). Marketing communications: Contexts, contents and strategies (2nd ed.). Hemel
Hempstead: Prentice Hall Europe511–522.
Fisher, R. J. (1991). Durable differentiation strategies for services. Journal of Services
Marketing, 5(1), 19–28.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,
39–50.
Frías-Jamilena, D. M., Polo-Peña, A. I., & Rodríguez-Molina, M. A. (2016). The effect of
value-creation on consumer-based destination brand equity. Journal of Travel
Research, 56(8), 1011–1031.
Gallarza, M. G., Gil, I., & Garcia, H. C. (2002). Destination image: Toward a conceptual
framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 56–78.
García, J. A., Gómez, M., & Molina, A. (2012). A destination-branding model: An em-
pirical analysis based on stakeholders. Tourism Management, 33, 646–661.
Gartner, W. C. (1989). Tourism image: Attribute measurement of state tourism products
using multidimensional scaling techniques. Journal of Travel Research, 28, 16–20.
Gilbert, D. (1990). Strategic marketing planning for national tourism. Tourist Review, 1,
18–27.
Gnoth, J. (1998). Conference reports: Branding tourism destinations. Annals of Tourism
Research, 25, 758–760.
Goodrich, J. L. (1978). A new approach to image analysis through multidimensional
scaling. Journal of Travel Research, 16(3), 3–7.
Grabler, K. (1997). Perceptual mapping and positioning of tourist cities. In J. A. Mazanec
(Ed.). International city tourism (pp. 101–113). London: Pinter.
Gursoy, D., Chen, M. H., & Kim, H. J. (2005). The US airlines relative positioning based on
attributes of service quality. Tourism Management, 26, 57–67.
Haahti, A. J. (1986). Finland's competitive position as a destination. Annals of Tourism
Research, 13(1), 11–35.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least
squares structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, NJ: Sage Publications.
Heckler, S. E., & Childers, T. L. (1992). The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory
for verbal and visual information: What is incongruency? Journal of Consumer
Research, 18(4), 475–492.
Herrero, A., San Martín, H., García de los Salmones, M. M., & Collado, J. (2017).
Examining the hierarchy of destination brands and the chain of effects between brand
equity dimensions. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6(4), 353–362.
Hooley, G., Saunders, J., & Piercy, N. (2004). Marketing strategy and competitive positioning
(3th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Hu, Y., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). Measuring destination attractiveness: A contextual
approach. Journal of Travel Research, 32(2), 25–34.
Im, H. H., Kim, S. S., Elliot, S., & Han, H. (2012). Conceptualizing destination brand
equity dimensions from a consumer-based brand equity perspective. Journal of Travel
& Tourism Marketing, 29(4), 385–403.
Instituto de Turismo de España (ITE) (2017). Encuesta de movimientos turísticos en fronteras
123
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 12 (2019) 114–124
(Frontur) y Encuesta de gasto turístico (Egatur). Energía y Turismo: Ministerio de
Industria.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Keller, K. L. (2009). Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications en-
vironment. Journal of Marketing Communications, 15(2–3), 139–155.
Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Kim, H. (1998). Perceived attractiveness of Korean destinations. Annals of Tourism
Research, 25(2), 340–361.
Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3th ed.).
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Kliatchko, J. G. (2008). Revisiting the IMC construct: A revised definition and four pillars.
International Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 133–160.
Kotler, N., Haider, J., & Miller, L. (1993). Marketing places: Attracting investment, industry
and tourism to cities, states and nations. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (1999). Measuring destination competitiveness: Conceptual
considerations and empirical findings. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
18, 273–283.
Laing, C., & Lewis, A. (2017). Exploring clustering as a destination development strategy
for rural communities: The case of La Brea, Trinidad. Journal of Destination Marketing
& Management, 6, 184–195.
Lascu, D. N., Manrai, L. A., Manrai, A. K., & Gan, A. (2018). A cluster analysis of tourist
attractions in Spain: Natural and cultural traits and implications for global tourism.
European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 27(3), 218–230.
Lee, M., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Effects of product placement in on-line games on brand
memory: A perspective of the limited-capacity model of attention. Journal of
Advertising, 36(4), 75–90.
Lindgreen, A., Palmer, R., & Vanhamme, J. (2004). Contemporary marketing practice:
Theoretical propositions and practical implications. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
22(6), 673–692.
Low, G. S. (2000). Correlates of integrated marketing communications. Journal of
Advertising Research, 40(3), 27–39.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural ante-
cedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of
Marketing, 53, 48–65 April.
Madhavaram, S., Badrinarayanan, V., & McDonald, R. E. (2005). Integrated marketing
communication (IMC) and brand identity as critical components of brand equity
strategy: A conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Advertising,
34(4), 69–80.
Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing research: An applied orientation. New Jersey, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Mandler, G. (1982). Stress and thought processes. In L. Goldberger, & S. Breznitz (Eds.).
Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 88–104). New York, NY: Free
Press.
Mayo, E. J., & Jarvis, L. P. (1981). The psychology of leisure travel. Boston, MA: CBI.
McAlexander, J., Becker, B., & Kaldenberg, D. (1993). Positioning health care services:
Yellow pages advertising and dental practice performance. Journal of Health Care
Marketing, 13(Winter), 54–57.
Melián-González, A., & García-Falcón, J. M. (2003). Competitive potential of tourism in
destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 720–740.
Moriarty, S., & Schultz, D. (2012). Four theories of how IMC works. Advertising Theory, 3,
491–505.
Morimoto, M., & Trimble, C. (2012). Consumers' use of blogs as product information
sources: From need-for-cognition perspective. Marketing Management Journal, 22(2),
45–60.
Muñoz-Leiva, F., Porcu, L., & Del Barrio-García, S. (2015). Discovering prominent themes
in integrated marketing communication research from 1991 to 2012: A co-word
analytic approach. International Journal of Advertising, 34(4), 678–701.
Muehling, D. D., Stolman, J. J., & Mishra, S. (1990). An examination of the cognitive
antecedents of attitude-toward-the-ad. Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising, 12(1&2), 95–117.
Murphy, P. E., & Pritchard, M. (1997). Destination price–value perceptions: An ex-
amination of origin and seasonal influences. Journal of Travel Research, 35(3), 16–22.
Mykletun, R. J., Crotts, J. C., & Mykletun, A. (2001). Positioning an island destination in
the peripheral area of the Baltics: A flexible approach to market segmentation.
Tourism Management, 22(5), 493–500.
Nowak, G. J., & Phelps, J. (1994). Conceptualizing the integrated marketing commu-
nications' phenomenon: An examination of its impact on advertising practices and its
implications for advertising research. Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising, 16(1), 49–66.
Organización Mundial del Turismo (OMT) (2016). Panorama OMT del turismo inter-
nacional.
Pack, S. (2008). Tourism, modernization, and difference: A twentieth-century Spanish
paradigm. Sport in Society, 11(6), 657–672.
Perdue, B. C., & Summers, J. O. (1986). Checking the success of manipulations in mar-
keting experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(November), 317–326.
Phelan, K. P., Chen, H. T., & Haney, M. (2013). ‘Like’ and ‘check-in’: How hotels utilize
Facebook as an effective marketing tool. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Technology, 4(2), 134–154.
Phelps, J., & Johnson, E. (1996). Entering the quagmire: Examining the ‘meaning’ of
integrated marketing communications. Journal of Marketing Communications, 2(3),
159–172.
Pickton, D. (2004). Assessing integrated corporate communication. In S. M. Oliver (Ed.).
Handbook of corporate communication and public relations: Pure and applied (pp. 227–
M.A. Rodríguez-Molina, et al.
241). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pike, S. (2006). Destination decision sets: A longitudinal comparison of stated destination
preferences and actual travel. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12(4), 319–328.
Pike, S. (2012). Destination positioning opportunities using personal values: Elicited
through the repertory test with laddering analysis. Tourism Management, 33,
100–107.
Pike, S., & Bianchi, C. (2013). Destination brand equity for Australia: Testing a model of
CBBE in short-haul and long-haul markets. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
20(10), 1–21.
Pike, S., Bianchi, C., Kerr, G., & Patti, C. (2010). Consumer-based brand equity for
Australia as a long haul tourism destination in an emerging market. International
Marketing Review, 27(4), 434–449.
Pike, S., & Page, S. J. (2014). Destination marketing organizations and destination mar-
keting: A narrative analysis of the literature. Tourism Management, 41, 202–227.
Pike, S., & Ryan, C. (2004). Destination positioning analysis through a comparison of
cognitive, affective and conative perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4),
333–342.
Porcu, L., Del Barrio-García, S., & Kitchen, P. J. (2012). How integrated marketing
communications (IMC) works? A theoretical review and an analysis of its main dri-
vers and effects. Communications Society, XXV(1), 313–348.
Porcu, L., Del Barrio-García, S., & Kitchen, P. J. (2017). Measuring integrated marketing
communication by taking a broad organisational approach: The firm-wide IMC scale.
European Journal of Marketing, 51(3), 692–718.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, Nov/Dec, 61–78.
Ries, A., & Trout, J. (1981). Positioning: The battle for your mind. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
Schultz, D. E., Kim, I., & Kang, K. (2014). Integrated marketing communication research.
In H. Cheng (Ed.). The handbook of international advertising research (pp. 457–483).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Schultz, D. E., & Schultz, H. (1998). Transitioning marketing communication into the
twenty-first century. Journal of Marketing Communications, 4, 9–26.
Seongseop, K. S., Chuna, H., & Petrick, J. F. (2005). Positioning analysis of overseas golf
tour destinations by Korean golf tourists. Tourism Management, 26, 905–917.
Šerić, M. (2017). Relationships between social Web, IMC and overall brand equity: An
empirical examination from the cross–cultural perspective. European Journal of
Marketing, 51(3), 646–667.
Šerić, M., & Gil-Saura, I. (2011). Integrated marketing communications and information
and communication technology in the hotel sector: An analysis of their use and de-
velopment in Dalmatian first-class and luxury hotels. Journal of Retail and Leisure
Property, 9(5), 401–414.
Šerić, M., & Gil-Saura, I. (2012). ICT, IMC, and brand equity in high-quality hotels of
Dalmatia: An analysis from guest perceptions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, 21(8), 821–851.
Šerić, M., Gil-Saura, I., & Ozretic-Dosen, D. (2015). Insights on integrated marketing
communications: Implementation and impact in hotel companies. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(5), 958–979.
Šerić, M., Gil-Saura, I., & Ruiz-Molina, M. E. (2014). How can integrated marketing
communications and advanced technology influence the creation of customer-based
brand equity? Evidence from the hospitality industry. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 39(May), 144–156.
Skinner, H. (2005). Wish you were here? Some problems associated with integrating
marketing communications when promoting place brands. Place Branding, 1(3),
299–315.
Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 226–238.
Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Shervani, T. A. (2000). Linking advertising to brand and
124
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 12 (2019) 114–124
market-based assets. Admap, February, 33–36.
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value, the development of a
multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77, 203–220.
Uysal, M., Chen, J., & Williams, D. R. (2000). Increasing state market share through a
regional positioning. Tourism Management, 21(1), 89–96.
Wang, Y. J., Wu, C., & Yuan, J. (2009). The role of integrated marketing communications
(IMC) on heritage destination visitations. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality &
Tourism, 10(3), 218–231.
Washburn, J., & Plank, R. (2002). Measuring brand equity: An evaluation of a consumer-
based brand equity scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17(6), 46–61.
Williams, A., & Palmer, A. (1999). Tourism destination brands and electronic commerce:
Towards synergy. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5, 263–275.
Woodside, A. G. (1982). Positioning a province using travel research. Journal of Travel
Research, 20, 2–6.
Woodside, A. G., & Sherrell, D. (1977). Traveler evoked, inept, and inert sets of vacation
destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 16, 14–18.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-
based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements
and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195–211.
Zavattaro, S. M., Daspit, J. J., & Adams, F. G. (2015). Assessing managerial methods for
evaluating place brand equity: A qualitative investigation. Tourism Management, 47,
11–21.
Rodríguez Molina, M. A, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Marketing and Market
Research at the University of Granada. His research interests encompass tourism, con-
sumer behaviour, and mobile marketing. He has written several academic articles pub-
lished in reputed journals in such areas, ie. Tourism Management, Journal of Travel
Research, Internet Research, Journal of Advertising Research, and Journal of Small
Business Management, among others.
Frías-Jamilena, D.M, Professor in the Department of Marketing and Market Research at
the University of Granada. His research interests are in the areas of online consumer
behavioral, tourism and cross-cultural research. She has published in Tourism
Management, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Journal Small Business Management,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Internet Research, Online Information
Review, The Services Industries Journal, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Cornell Hospitality Quartely, Journal of Travel Research, and other scho-
larly journals.
Del Barrio-García, S, Associate Professor of Marketing at University of Granada (Spain).
His areas of specialization are the Integrated Marketing Communication (IMC), Tourism
Marketing, Marketing Online, and Cross-Cultural Marketing. He has published several
books as author and co-author on these matters. He has also published various peer-
reviewed papers in prestigious journals such as International Journal of Advertising,
Journal of Advertising Research, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Journal of Destination
Marketing & Management, European Journal of Marketing, Cross Cultural Management,
Computers in Human Behavior, among others.
Castañeda-García, J.A. Senior Lecturer in the Department of Marketing and Market
Research at the University of Granada. His research interests encompass e-commerce,
mobile commerce, tourism and cross-cultural research. He has written several academic
articles published in reputed journals in such areas, ie. Internet Research, Information &
Management, Online Information Review, Tourism Management, Journal of Travel
Research, among others.