Journal ofhttp://jvm.sagepub.

com/
Vacation Marketing

Destination brands vs destination images: Do we know what we mean?

Asli D. A. Tasci and Metin Kozak
Journal of Vacation Marketing 2006 12: 299
DOI: 10.1177/1356766706067603

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jvm.sagepub.com/content/12/4/299

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Vacation Marketing can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jvm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jvm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jvm.sagepub.com/content/12/4/299.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Sep 19, 2006

What is This?

Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014

Academic Papers
Destination brands vs destination images:
Do we know what we mean?
Asli D. A. Tasci and Metin Kozak
Received (in revised form): March 2006
Anonymously refereed paper
School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Mugla University, 48170 Mugla, Turkey
Tel: + 90 252 211 18 64; Fax: + 90 252 223 91 64; E-mail: adatasci@yahoo.com
Asli D. A. Tasci is an assistant professor of
Marketing in the School of Tourism and Hospital-
ity Management at Mugla University, Turkey. Her
BA is from the Middle East Technical University
in Turkey and her MS and PhD are from Michigan
State University, USA. Her interests entail a
range of subjects in the general area of travel
destination marketing.
Metin Kozak is an associate professor in the
School of Tourism and Hotel Management, Mu-
gla University, Turkey. He obtained his Master’s
degree in Tourism from Dokuz Eylul University,
Turkey and a PhD in Tourism from Sheffield
Hallam University, UK. His main research inter-
ests focus on consumer behavior, benchmarking,
competitiveness, and Mediterranean tourism.
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS: destination branding, destina-
tion image, destination marketing, tourism
experts
A review of the literature on branding in general,
and on destination branding more specifically,
raises several questions about the branding of
tourist destinations. What is clear is that confusion
exists in the concept of ‘brand’ in the tourist
destination context. This panel study was de-
signed to explore how experts perceive the meaning
Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
Journal of Vacation Marketing Volume 12 Number 4
of destination branding and its main characteristics.
Five propositions were developed and explored in
regards to the lack of clear definition of destination
brand, the confusion between brand and image,
the lack of conception of similarities and differences
between branding for consumer products and tourist
destinations, the difficulty of identifying one sym-
bol for countries, and the lack of commonly-known
brands of tourist destinations. This article then
proposes a model of branding and its ramifications
in the tourism destination context, as well as
providing several methodological, theoretical and
practical implications.
INTRODUCTION
Branding in tourist destinations context is a
subject of inquiry due to several possible
effects on consumer behavior. It is reported
that tourists mentally categorize destinations.
One proposed categorization is grouped into
‘consideration’ (evoked), ‘inert’ and ‘inept’
sets.1 The ‘consideration’ set includes all
destinations that a tourist is aware of and
may be likely to visit. The ‘inert’ set repre-
sents all destinations that the tourist is aware
of but has no intention of visiting in the
short-term. Finally, the ‘inept’ set refers to
Journal of Vacation Marketing
destination(s) that the tourist is aware of, but Vol. 12 No. 4, 2006, pp. 299–317
& SAGE Publications
has no intention to visit in a specific time London, Thousand Oaks, CA,
period. Destinations that the tourist is not and New Delhi.
www.sagepublications.com
aware of refer to the ‘unawareness set’. DOI: 10.1177/1356766706067603
Page 299
Destination brands vs destination images
According to Um and Crompton,2 tourists
are expected to select a destination from a set
of alternatives in the ‘consideration’ (evoked)
set. Destinations effectively compete with
each other for a place in the consideration
set of their target market. A brand name
emerging from the level of satisfaction, past
visits and word-of-mouth recommendation
could be a significant factor for consideration
in destination choice models. This may pro-
vide destinations with such opportunities as
decreased marketing costs for existing custo-
mers, lower marketing costs for obtaining
new customers due to the enhancement of
positive publicity, and maintaining a better
relationship with customers.3
The intention to purchase from the same
premise is a critical objective in services
marketing because it may reflect brand loy-
alty and encourage word-of-mouth recom-
mendation. Because a brand is about creating
communication with a consumer, its vision
is expected to inspire consistency and trust to
consumers.4 Word-of-mouth communica-
tion seems to be rather important for the
service industry as it is believed that services
are quite difficult for customers, particularly
for the first-time tourists, to evaluate in ad-
vance of the purchasing process and directly
affect their actual experiences.5 Word-of-
mouth recommendation has a significant
bearing on travelers’ destination choice
stages.6 The findings of previous research
report that the majority of tourists receive
travel information from friends and relatives
whereas only the minority from the print
media.7 The influence of a brand name over
positive word-of-mouth recommendation,
therefore, is considerably important for des-
tination authorities to achieve.
A considerable amount of research has
been carried out on customer loyalty and its
link with marketing strategies.8 In consumer
products context, research on consumer loy-
alty has focused primarily on ‘brand loyalty’,
while there is a lack of research in loyalty
and brand loyalty in tourist destinations con-
text.9 A brand name, destination itself or
service facilities, might have influences on
loyalty felt by tourists towards a destination.
A review of literature on branding in
Page 300 Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
general and destination branding reveals sev-
eral questions about this concept especially
in tourist destination context. As an interdis-
ciplinary area, tourism borrows and applies
many aspects from other areas of inquiry;
branding is one of them from the field of
marketing. However, as in every new con-
cept in tourism, confusion exists in the con-
cept of ‘brand’ in tourist destination context.
For example, it seems that there is confusion
between brand and image especially in tour-
ist destination context. Moreover, there is a
dearth of research into the measurement of
destination image in general and the consid-
eration of branding for individual organiza-
tions in particular, but the concept of
branding for tourist destinations has received
little attention to date. Therefore, there ex-
isted a need to conduct further research on
this concept. This research was exploratory
in nature, aiming at eliciting experts’ views
about the concept of destination branding
within their frames of reference.
Meaning and advantages of branding
Brand is defined by the American Marketing
Association as ‘a name, term, sign, symbol or
design, or a combination of these, intended
to identify the goods or services of one seller
or group of sellers and to differentiate them
from those of competitors’.10 Kotler and
Gertner11 postulate that brands not only ‘dif-
ferentiate products and represent a promise
of value’ but also ‘incite beliefs, evoke emo-
tions and prompt behaviors’ (p. 249). The
seller or maker of a brand, which can be a
logo, a symbol, a trademark or a name, is
entitled to exclusive rights to use the brand
without any expiration dates, which distin-
guishes it from patents and copyrights.12
Kotler13 purports that ‘perhaps the most dis-
tinctive skill of professional marketers’ is
creating, maintaining, protecting and enhan-
cing a brand that ‘identifies the seller or
maker’ (p. 443). He elaborates that a brand is
a promise of consistently delivering consu-
mers certain features which can have mean-
ings of six levels to be a deep brand: 1)
Attributes such as price and performance, 2)
functional or emotional benefits such as long

use and feeling important, 3) values such as
safety and prestige, 4) culture of a certain
group of people, 5) personality of a person
or animal, and 6) the user suitable to use the
product (p. 443).
In the literature regarding branding of
consumer products, there exist several re-
search constructs such as, brand equity,
brand charisma, brand relationships, brand
affinity, brand personality, brand attitude,
and brand image.14 Defined as the ‘cluster of
attributes and associations that consumers
connect to the brand name’, brand image is
considered to be the key determinant of
brand equity, the set of assets and liabilities
connected with the brand.15 There is also the
concept of brand origin, ‘the place, region or
country to which the brand is perceived to
belong by its target consumers’.16 Semanti-
cally, this could be the concept that has the
closest connotations with the branding con-
cept in tourist destination context.
Tourist destination branding
Despite not receiving much attention in the
tourism and hospitality literature, branding is
claimed to be expanding into tourist des-
tinations.17 It emerged as a topic of inquiry
in the late 1990s. Several researchers in tour-
ism marketing who participated in the AMS
(the American Marketing Science) confer-
ence organized in Miami, USA in 1997
discussed destination brand development in
their presentations. Also, the theme of
TTRA’s (the Travel and Tourism Research
Association) 29th annual research conference
in 1998 was ‘Branding the Travel Market’.
Cases of branding in several US states and
cities as well as few other country brands
were disseminated at this conference. In
1999, a special issue (5) of the Journal of
Vacation Marketing was dedicated to ‘Destina-
tion Branding’, and early in the new millen-
nium, a book on destination branding was
edited by Morgan et al.18 Finally, in 2003,
two issues of the ECLIPSE, a periodic pub-
lication on destination marketing, were
devoted particularly to the discussion of eval-
uating image formation. In this context,
experts were invited to discuss the relation-
Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
Tasci and Kozak
ship between brand and image from the
practical perspective of destination mar-
keting.
Kotler et al.19 define the conditions that
support branding in tourism as easy identifi-
cation by consumers, perception of good
value for the price, easy maintenance of
quality and standards, a large enough demand
for the general product for a chain and the
existence of economies of scale. Morgan et
al.20 identify branding as ‘the most powerful
marketing weapon available to contempor-
ary destination marketers’ due to ‘increasing
product parity, substitutability and competi-
tion’ (p. 335). Williams et al.21 on the other
hand, profess that branding in tourism is
increasing due to globally growing needs for
corporate partnerships for accessing to scarce
resources and for more unique and coopera-
tive positioning in the competitive market-
place.
Milligan22 expresses that a brand is ‘what
differentiates you and makes you special’
(p. 39), which refers to the concept of
product or destination positioning. Morgan
et al. contend that ‘a brand represents a
unique combination of product character-
istics and added values, both functional and
non-functional, which have taken on a rele-
vant meaning that is inextricably linked to
the brand, awareness of which might be
conscious or intuitive’ (p. 335). Hankinson23
elaborated on the view of destination brands
as relationships and summarized these rela-
tionships as the match between destination
image and visitors’ self-image, or a match
between the brand and consumers, where
consumer’s needs and brand’s symbolic
values and functional attributes match.
Hankinson24 attributes this perspective as
particularly pertinent to service brands due
to the central element of service encounter,
the interaction between personnel and con-
sumers, where consumers play a role in the
production of the service product an oppor-
tunity to develop relationships is provided
through positive experiences.
Destination branding is claimed to include
selection and strategic combination of ‘a
consistent mix of brand elements to identify
and distinguish a destination through posi-
Page 301
Destination brands vs destination images
tive image building’.25 These elements, simi-
lar to the consumer products, are proposed
to include terms, names, signs, logos, de-
signs, symbols, slogans, color, packages, ar-
chitecture, typography, photographic styles,
as well as heritage, language, myths and
legends.26 Some researchers equate develop-
ing a destination brand to development of a
destination image identity.27 Therefore, des-
tination brand loyalty refers to the ability of a
destination to provide visitors with an ex-
perience that corresponds to their needs and
matches the image that they hold of the
destination itself.28
Considered as the key to acquiring and
enhancing a strategic market position and
competitiveness, destination branding is pur-
ported to be the manifest of a memorable
bond or an emotional link between the
target markets and the destination.29 It is
claimed to involve ‘capturing a market posi-
tion that appeals to visitors’ by identifying,
simplifying, distilling and focusing on the
core values and assets that are unique, ap-
pealing, distinct and non-substitutable at the
destination, ‘while respecting the broader
values and goals of the community’, that is
keeping the ‘sense of the place’.30 Morgan et
al.31 postulate that strong destination brands
have rich ‘emotional meaning’, ‘great con-
versation value’ and provide ‘high anticipa-
tion’ for their potential tourists.
Gnoth’s32 model of tourism branding de-
fines different options of branding in tourism
destinations: 1) functional, emphasizing the
destination’s problem solving capabilities
such as accessibility and reliability, 2) sym-
bolic, emphasizing the destination’s ego-
enhancing attributes such as family, and
affiliations with celebrities, and 3) experien-
tial, emphasizing the destination’s cognitive
or affective attributes such as relaxation and
learning.33
Through a literature review and inter-
viewing leading-edge brand consultants, De
Chernatony and Riley34 discussed the extent
to which the conceptualization of branding
of physical goods is relevant to branding of
services, with a special focus on financial
services. They concluded that, for both pro-
ducts and services, principles of branding are
Page 302 Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
conceptually common and ‘brands must be
developed as the link mirroring the set of
functional and emotional values created by
the company and the way these are per-
ceived by consumers’ (p. 182).
However, due to the unique character-
istics of tourism industry, branding in tour-
ism has its own unique challenges.35 De
Chernatony and Riley36 contend that differ-
ences between branding of products and
services exist at the operation level due to
the unique characteristics of service brands,
namely, inseparability of production and
consumption, intangibility, perishability,
heterogeneity, as well as the current incon-
sistency of delivery of services brands. As a
solution to reduce the impact of these chal-
lenges, they suggest ‘a consumer-delighting
culture’ supported by internal communica-
tion and training. Morgan et al.37 attribute
the challenges of destination branding to the
amorphous nature of destination product,
the politics involved in destination market-
ing and limited resources allocated for desti-
nation marketing.
According to Cai38 ‘unlike typical goods
and services, the name of a destination brand
is relatively fixed by the actual geographical
name of the place’ (p. 722). He attributes the
challenges in branding tourist destinations to
‘the complexity of the decision process on
the part of tourists’ due to the intangible and
risky nature of the tourist destination pro-
ducts (p. 721). Buhalis39 considers destina-
tion branding as a complex task; it involves
distilling a wide range of tangible and intan-
gible attributes of the destination while
keeping the values of several stakeholders
involved. Also, changing market preferences
are considered to hamper establishment of
consistent destination brands.40 However,
Buhalis41 aligned four principles for a suc-
cessful conduct of destination branding: 1)
collaboration rather than competition of des-
tination stakeholders in the brand develop-
ment process, 2) the brand’s agreement with
and support of the values of the destination,
including the physical and cultural carrying
capacity, 3) orienting the brand’s strategy for
a clearly-defined target market, and 4) sup-
porting the destination in its vision of

development. Kotler et al.42 provide Disney-
land, Hilton, Club Med, Sizzler and
McDonald’s as examples of brands for the
hospitality industry.
In branding of consumer products, it is
common to see joint-branding or brand
alliances, where two or more products are
integrated to create a quality reassuring or a
quality boost for any or all products involved
in the joint.43 The benefit of joint-branding
is postulated to be valuable especially for
‘experience products’, such as tourist desti-
nations, where the product quality is not
readily observable.44 Similarly, Cai45 intro-
duced the term ‘cooperative destination
branding’, which refers to ‘the formation of
a brand name bringing together two or more
adjoining communities of similar natural and
cultural compositions of attractions’ (p. 734).
The proposed benefits of cooperative desti-
nation branding across multiple communities
include effective use of ‘brand element mix
(including the name)’ and efficient use of
tourism resources in building a stronger des-
tination identity and image than an indivi-
dual community. The idea behind this
proposition is that geographical heterogene-
ity may limit building a particular brand for a
destination or a country (e.g. the Clock
Tower and the Ephesus Theatre; both are in
Izmir, Turkey).
Kotler and Gertner46 question if countries
can be brands and can have brand equity and
concluded in favor by mentioning the possi-
ble effect of strong country brands in attract-
ing not only tourists, but also businesses and
investment. They define steps and tools of
successful country branding: projection of a
simple, appealing, believable, and distinctive
image; defining the attributes that form a
basis for strong branding (e.g. natural re-
sources); developing an umbrella concept to
cover all of the country’s separate branding
activities (e.g. pleasure); a catchy slogan (e.g.
‘Spain Everything Under the Sun’); visual
images or symbols (e.g. Big Ben for Lon-
don/England); and special events or deeds
(e.g. Wimbledon Tennis Tournament for
England).
In empirical studies, branding in the tour-
ist destinations context is usually conceptua-
Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
Tasci and Kozak
lized at smaller levels; namely, at resort level
rather than country levels. In a case study of
Wales, Pritchard and Morgan47 analyzed
tourism representations by investigating des-
tination branding strategies in the marketing
campaigns of the Wales Tourist Board and
Welsh local authorities. Through a content
analysis of tourism brochures, complemented
by an in-depth interview of a retired key
decision-maker, they concluded that Wales’
marketing representations used in branding
strategies, like any other destination, ‘are
inextricably intertwined with historical, poli-
tical and cultural processes and are not solely
the outcome of elective marketing practice’,
which they defined as the basis of differen-
tiated branding of Wales in international and
UK markets (p. 2).
Through a review of literature and pro-
motional materials, as well as interviews with
officials, Cai48 investigated the use of ‘coop-
erative branding across multiple rural com-
munities with geographic and cultural
proximity’. He also proposed a recursive
conceptual model of destination branding,
which ‘was illustrated through the case of
Old West Country, a marketing consortium
consisting of seven rural counties in the state
of New Mexico, USA’, a good practice of
destination branding. He found evidence to
support his model and also concluded that
cooperative branding across multiple rural
communities is beneficial in 1) projecting a
consistent cognitive image across commu-
nities based on shared destination attributes,
2) ‘strengthen(ing) attributes-based brand as-
sociations and their linkages to brand identity
more for the region as whole than for its
member communities’, and 3) generating
‘greater favorability toward the region than
its member communities’ (p. 736)
Morgan et al.49 narrate the case of ‘the
100% Pure New Zealand (NZ)’ brand as a
successful destination branding, which was
initiated in an effort to double the country’s
tourism earnings by 2005 and was targeted
to Australia, Japan, the USA, the UK, Ger-
many and Singapore. They shed light on the
UK phase of the research involving in-depth
interviews and focus groups, and demon-
strated the identification of the brand’s
Page 303
Destination brands vs destination images
values, incorporation of these values into an
emotionally appealing personality and effec-
tive and efficient delivery of this message to
the target markets, all which they purport to
be critical for a durable destination branding.
They conclude that the successful creation
and application of ‘the 100% Pure NZ’
brand was facilitated with marketing research
and partnerships.
In a case study, Williams et al.50 investi-
gated the destination branding activities of
an American resort corporation, Intrawest,
in Whistler, British Columbia, Canada.
Through the content analysis of planning
and marketing information gathered from
several sources, they identified that branding
in Whistler by a private corporation and a
public organization has problems in ensuring
the application of the four principles defined
by Buhalis.51 They also raise a question about
the suitability of branding in tourism destina-
tions, by claiming that tourists sometimes
seek unexpected and spontaneous experi-
ences, which is stifled by branding.
Image and Brand
There is a debate about the extent to which
the concepts ‘brand’ and ‘image’ differ from
or are associated with each other. Some
argue that destination branding is overwhel-
mingly associated with destination image.52
According to others, image is very different
from branding; yet the latter is created
through the former.53 Kozak54 argues that
destination brand tends to be more sustain-
able than destination image and both its
creation and demolition take time. Cai55
defines the image of a destination brand as
‘perceptions about the place as reflected by
the associations held in tourist memory
. . .Building a brand image amounts to iden-
tifying the most relevant associations and
strengthening their linkages to the brand’
(p. 723). In their study on constructing a
healthy branding strategy for Wales, Pritch-
ard and Morgan56 attempt to use heritage,
language, person, myths, legends and em-
blems. These elements also constitute how
Wales’ image is featured. In this study, his-
torical, political and cultural sources are con-
Page 304 Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
sidered as the combination of the three
elements forming both the destination image
and destination branding. It is clear that there
is one more element missing in this combi-
nation: natural attractions.
Cai57 draws attention to the distinction
between image formation and destination
branding: ‘Image formation is not branding,
albeit the former constitutes the core of the
latter. Image building is one step closer, but
there still remains a critical missing link: the
brand identity. To advance destination im-
age studies to the level of branding, this link
needs to be established’ (p. 722). Image and
brand are considered as interrelated concepts;
image is an important building block in
developing destination brands and brand im-
age is defined as the set of beliefs that
consumers hold about a particular brand.58
Brand image is defined as ‘. . . the concept as
the embodiment of the abstract reality that
people buy products or brands for something
other than their physical attributes and func-
tions’.59 Kotler and Gertner60 recognize the
activation of an image of a country in the
minds of people via merely mentioning its
name even in the absence of conscious brand
management activities.
In tourist destination context, there are
several different definitions of image. Hunt61
defined country image as people’s impres-
sions of countries that they do not reside in.
Millman and Pizam62 calls image as the sum
of tourism experience-related attributes.
Coshall63 defines it as ‘the individual’s per-
ceptions of the characteristics of destinations’
(p. 85). Crompton’s64 definition of image is
relatively more commonly-accepted than
others: ‘the sum of beliefs, ideas, and impres-
sions that a person has of a destination’
(p. 18). Image can be influenced by several
factors including, but not limited to, promo-
tional information from the destination; sev-
eral external information sources such as the
news media also play important roles in
shaping images of tourist destinations.
Therefore, Bramwell and Rawding65 suggest
a distinguishing definition of projected im-
age as ‘the ideas and impressions of a place
that are available for people’s consideration’
(p. 202). Theoretically, the projected and

received images could be different and the fit
between the two would depend on the
success of the destination marketing activ-
ities, eventually contributing to the consu-
mer satisfaction upon visitation.
As can be seen from the review of litera-
ture on branding in general and destination
branding in particular, there is still a lack of
research as well as confusion in this relatively
new area of inquiry in the field of travel and
tourism. Therefore, there existed a need to
conduct a panel of experts to clarify some of
the confusion and establish some consensus
about this concept. The following five pro-
positions are formed to guide this study:
Proposition 1: The concept of brand is not
clearly defined in tourism destination con-
text.
Proposition 2: There is confusion between
brand and image in tourism destination con-
text.
Proposition 3: There is a lack of concep-
tion in terms of comparisons between brand-
ing in consumer products context and
branding tourist destination context.
Proposition 4: Due to the big size, it would
be difficult to identify one symbol (as one
element of brand) for countries.
Proposition 5: There is a lack of com-
monly-known brands of tourist destinations.
METHODOLOGY
Online modes are proposed to have advan-
tages of high response rates with organiza-
tional populations, better quality data on
open-ended questions, and faster and cheap-
er data collection than the traditional mod-
es.66 The objective of this study is to establish
a consensus in concepts and meanings attrib-
uted to branding in destination context by
utilizing experiences and opinions of a group
of experts. Therefore, the simplest form of
online modes, e-mail plain text, is chosen to
conduct a panel of experts to define the
meaning of ‘brand’ in the context of tourism
destinations. Despite the disadvantage of the
lack of anonymity and limited confidentiality
in the e-mail plain text mode, this mode has
advantages over the other two online modes,
Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
Tasci and Kozak
e-mail attached file and HTML file on the
world-wide-web (WWW).67 In this mode,
the actual survey is embedded in the e-mail
rather than as a file or a URL link, which
decreases downloading time, increases the
visibility of the survey, eventually increasing
the chance of response. Also, respondents do
not have to be online while typing their
responses, which is a positive aspect for those
who are concerned about the expenses of
staying online.68 Considering the busy life-
style of experts, e-mail plain text form was
considered as the most suitable mode of
reaching and getting response from research-
ers thought to be experts in this study sub-
ject.
To this end, a group of academia, re-
searchers and practitioners in the field of
travel and tourism who are thought to be
expert enough to define the meaning of
‘brand’ in tourism destinations context were
identified and reached via e-mail. Each ex-
pert was e-mailed manually rather than using
a mass e-mailer program such as Survey-
Tracker Plus E-Mail/Web (by National
Computer Systems, Inc. [NCS]). Although
personalizing e-mails for each expert could
have increased the response rate, a uniform
greeting (Dear Fellow Scientist) was used for
the purpose of professionalism. The subject
line of an e-mail is the defining factor in a
subject’s choice between deleting the mes-
sage or reading and responding to it; there-
fore, the subject of the e-mail was defined as
‘We need your expertise!’ to get enough
attention and response from these research-
ers. In the introduction of the e-mail, the
purpose of the study was explained along
with instructions on how to reply. Experts
were also informed that they did not need to
stay online to complete the survey and pro-
vided ways to avoid excessive amount of
charges. They were also assured confidenti-
ality as well as being given the e-mail ad-
dresses of the researchers conducting this
study for further inquiries. Since anonymity
is technically not possible with e-mail
modes, this issue was not mentioned.
Five open-ended questions were defined
as the key questions for a comprehensive
conception of ‘brand’ in the context of
Page 305
Destination brands vs destination images

tourist destinations. The first question was nic discussion forum in the field of tourism).
one of free associations about the ‘brand’ As can be seen in Table 1, a wide range of
concept in tourist destination context. The countries was represented in this sample,
second one referred to comparison of the including several European countries, the
‘brand’ concept with the ‘image’ concept in USA, some Asian and Middle Eastern coun-
tourist destination context, regarding simila- tries. It should be noted that these countries
rities and/or differences between them. In cannot be assumed to be the countries of
the next question, the comparison was be- origin of these experts; they rather need to
tween the ‘brand’ concept in tourist destina- be considered as the residence countries of
tion context and the ‘brand’ concept in these experts. Some countries were repre-
other contexts such as consumer products. In sented with a bigger number of experts than
the fourth question, the respondents were others; however, this was due to the same
provided the name of three countries as
examples of underdeveloped, developing
and developed destinations; namely, Nigeria,
Turkey and England, respectively. Respon-
dents were asked to provide an icon or a Table 1: Countries and Number of
symbol for these countries aiming to identify Experts Contacted and Responded
if countries or specific places or attractions in from each Country
countries make up brands in tourism con- Countries No. of experts No. of experts
text. To clarify this issue further, the final contacted responded
question asked respondents to provide an
example of a known brand name of a tourist The US 23 6
destination. As can be realized, these ques- The UK 9 2
tions were parallel to the propositions guid- Australia 6 2
ing this study. NZ 4 3
Respondents were asked to use the reply Hong Kong/China 4 0
Canada 3 1
function and type as much response as they
Spain 3 1
wanted, explaining that the space provided Germany 3 0
would widen as they typed. They were also Croatia 2 0
encouraged to provide further responses S. Korea 2 0
about the subject matter or any other aspect Austria 2 0
of the study. They were asked to reply with- Finland 2 0
in a week. Using fancy characters and gra- Italy 2 0
phics in forming the e-mail message can Switzerland 2 1
cause technical difficulties when opened in Netherlands 2 0
different kinds of programs, which could Turkey 2 0
decrease interest, thus, increase non- France 2 1
Hungary 1 0
response.69 To avoid this problem, only sim-
Norway 1 0
ple symbols such as parenthesis were used to Israel 1 1
designate the areas to place answers. Also, it Brazil 1 0
was tested to see if there was a wrapping Greece 1 0
problem and if it looked the way it was Belgium 1 0
supposed to when opened in different pro- Thailand 1 0
grams. Japan 1 0
A total of 86 academicians, researchers Poland 1 0
and practitioners were sampled from the Morocco 1 0
member lists of the International Association Argentina 1 0
of Scientific Experts in Tourism (AIEST), Slovenia 1 1
Egypt 1 0
the Travel and Tourism Research Associa-
Total 86 19
tion (TTRA) and the TRINET (an electro-

Page 306 Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014

overrepresentation of these countries in these
worldwide academic lists used as the sam-
pling frame of this study. Over a two-month
period from March to May 2004, two waves
of e-mails were sent to the identified experts,
along with a series of follow-up and remin-
der emails. A total of 19 experts responded at
a satisfying level. As can be seen in Table 1,
some level of responses was received from a
few countries, while no response was re-
ceived from a number of countries. A close
examination of the responses revealed that
every question was answered and a visible
pattern existed in responses. Thus, a total of
19 responses were subjected to a content
analysis. As responses were concise and clear
cut, they were analyzed using a constant
comparison qualitative methodology. To
clarify the existing pattern of meanings,
statements were paraphrased using the key
words; while paraphrasing, attention was
paid not to change the original meaning of
the statements. In addition, full responses are
also provided when necessary in the results
section.
RESULTS
Responses for each question are summarized
in Table 2. As can be seen from the table,
experts provided responses for all questions
included in the study. Ten experts also pro-
vided further comments at the end of their
responses, including good wishes, coopera-
tion offers, and further comments about the
topic and the study, all of which were helpful
for the study’s completion. Below is the dis-
cussion of the results question-by-question,
eventually commenting on the propositions
of this study. While discussing responses to
each question, responses to other questions
are also referenced when applicable connota-
tions existed.
What comes to your mind when you think of
the ‘brand’ concept in tourist destination context?
This was a free association question to
define if there is a solid meaning of brand in
tourism context. Brand in tourism context
recalled different type of associations for the
experts included in this study. From the
responses to all questions and from the addi-
Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
Tasci and Kozak
tional comments on the topic, it is clearly
visible that the new concept of brand is still
not clearly defined, thus difficult to grasp
and manage, and needs further research in
the field of travel and tourism. Hence, a
cynical statement about the use of brand in
tourism context that brand is ‘a fad, or a new
jargon to make consultants happy’ provokes
more thinking about the start and progress of
this new concept in the field of travel and
tourism. Therefore, there is evidence to
prove the first assumption of this study that
the concept of brand is not clearly defined in
tourism destination context.
Some responses to the first question such
as, ‘a mental picture, mood and/or emo-
tion’ and ‘what tourism consumers associate
with all tourism products/services that are
available at that destination’ provide more
of a description of the concept of image
rather than brand. No expert provided a
wholesome definition of brand in tourism
context; their responses rather provided bits
and pieces that make up the complex
structure of the brand concept when put
together like pieces of a puzzle. Thus,
brand can be put together as a concrete
identity for a destination, including compo-
nents of a name along with a simplified yet
strong and favorable image, a logo and a
catchphrase. This identity is communicated
by the destination through marketing
programs, and it provides consumers a
sense of value, stability, consistency, trust,
and uniqueness, thus inducing consumer
loyalty in the end.
Since brand is solid and inflexible, it is
viewed as ‘dangerous’ by an expert ‘because
it reduces marketing flexibility if it becomes
established’ looking at ‘how stuck Spain is
with sun, sea, sand, sangria and bullfights
(and) how stuck Britain is with its historical
past’. The same expert believes that ‘destina-
tion marketing should be market-driven or
demand-based, not driven by self-introspec-
tion or product-driven’, meaning, image
development activities through assessment of
images held by the public should provide the
direction for the marketing programs of a
destination rather than the product-driven
branding activities.
Page 307
 Page 308

Destination brands vs destination images

Table 2: A Summary of Responses for Each Question in the Study
Country of the Similarities/differences Destination brand Icon/symbol for Icon/symbol for Icon/symbol for Example of
Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014

expert Meaning of brand between image & brand vs. product brand England Turkey Nigeria destination brand
Australia Associations with Image shapes brand Destination brand Big Ben Minarets Corruption Australia
products/services uncontrollable Alberta
Australia A message from the Image is how brand is Destination brand Lion (rugby Blue Mosque None Australia’s Gold
destination perceived more complex and team) Coast
multidimensional
Canada A strong simplified Image – more Consumer Tower of Crescent Yoruba, Eiffel Tower
image, a single complex, maybe strong products brand London, carvings, I love NY
image or slogan or weak, broader than implies multiple beef-eaters, oil
brand products policeman,
Brand-strong and cricket in a
simplified village, beer
in a pub
France More of a value Similarity – Similar in Big Ben, Risked country, Africa, Futuroscope
than identity perception, projection, reliability, different Tower Bridge, Ankara, exotic, rainforest, Disneyland
representation in tangibility London, Istanbul, spices hot country, Centerparcs
Difference – cottages, poverty
communication, breakfast
advertising
Israel Brand of big and Brand comes first, Main difference is London Close by, Africa, out of Las Vegas
smaller entities at brand may have geographical friendly, bound
the same time different images dispersion – brands inexpensive,
have images packages in
Antalya &
Marmaris
NZ A fad or new jargon Brand is communicated Brand includes Garters Bosphorus Oil, blood Disneyland
for consultants and contains image culture
A tool to Image is received
commoditise living
spaces
(continued )
 Table 2: (continued)
Country of the Similarities/differences Destination brand Icon/symbol for Icon/symbol for Icon/symbol for Example of
expert Meaning of brand between image & brand vs. product brand England Turkey Nigeria destination brand
NZ Names Brand is production Not comparable Houses of Troy War, famine, Gold Coast
Tag lines and promotion of an Parliament Ataturk corporate
image greed, civil war,
Image is what people corruption
have and may not
reflect brand
NZ A specific image in Brand is articulation of Destination is a Lion (soccer Warm seas, Oil, corruption, 100% pure NZ
promotions for image multi-use location team) blue skies, mis-
market segments windsurfing at management
Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014

Bitez
Slovenia Managers’ Image is in the mind of Destination brand Colors blue, Color red No idea Spain
perspective: tourists more complex, green, orange, 100% pure NZ
identity-related Managers try to build many stakeholders red
Tourists’ brand identity
perspective: equity
Spain A word Invariably confused Destinations have Royal-pageantry, Istanbul & Artistically- Spain Marks
A visual cliché and fused together multiple London, green Bosphorus, rich, 100% pure NZ
A slogan Image – a picture or personalities even grass, rain classical remains, Timbucktu, I love NY
confusing feeling of consumer before branding, rugged Eastern unsafe, rude,
Brand – personality more complex and region corrupt
felt by the destination uncontrollable
Switzerland Image + promotion Image – mental Minimal Lion Half moon Nothing St. Moritz
+ logo + CD picture of the demand differences, fewer (crescent)
side destination brands
Brand – material- due to costs and size
ization of image of destinations
Mutual influence
UK Successful Image is more abstract Depends on London, red bus, Busy beach, Nothing Monte Carlo
destinations version of harder brand destinations Tower Bridge small town,
minarets,
low rised houses
(continued )

Tasci and Kozak

Page 309
 Page 310

Destination brands vs destination images

Table 2: (continued)
Country of the Similarities/differences Destination brand Icon/symbol for Icon/symbol for Icon/symbol for Example of
expert Meaning of brand between image & brand vs. product brand England Turkey Nigeria destination brand
UK Name + image Image – developed Difficult and The Queen Istanbul, Fraud letters Paris – romantic
over time and settled uncontrollable and Kapalicarsi Ibiza – party
Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014

Brand – contemporary multifaceted for Holland

and short destinations
USA Expectation of Image – multifaceted, Destination brand Buckingham Istanbul, Poverty Mexico
value from could be many images difficult and not Palace East meets West despair
reputation Brand-a single entity clear if it is doable violence
Overriding entity as
proxy for the
smaller parts
USA A clear image Closely-related Similar goals but Union Jack flag Beautiful art Native dress Pyramids
different strategies work Great Wall
& tactics Golden Gate Bridge
USA New and difficult Branding creates image Branding in Big Ben Istanbul None Disneyland
Brand – logo + Both needs consumer Sea World
identity + communications products is far Six Flags
positioning + Brand is controllable advanced Legoland
essence + culture + but not image
image +
communications
USA Loyalty, good Blurry, image is Difficult for London Tower, History, culture, Petrol, rich Hilton International
name, consistency, subjective connotation, destinations due to Hyde Park, Istanbul, natural Club Med
stability, uniqueness, part of destination intangibility culture mosques resources, Rome
objective positive branding corruption Waffle House
image Umbria Jazz Festival
USA Distinctiveness, Image is sub-concept Destination brand Old Rich culture Open 100% pure NZ
favorable images, and core substance of has more contact wilderness Old West country
marketing programs brand points, intangible
USA A mental picture, All interface into one Destinations evoke History Cradle of None South Carolina:
mood/emotion mental image or map more visuals, civilizations Beautiful places
consumer products smiling faces
evoke more Simply Niagara
function/solutions

How do you compare the ‘brand’ concept with
the ‘image’ concept in tourist destination context?
Are there similarities and/or differences between
them? If yes, what are they?
This question was asked to distinguish the
concept of image from the concept of brand.
Just as with the definition of brand, there are
blurry lines between image and brand and
the interrelationships between the two. As
with the definition of the brand, experts
provided different aspects of the complex
relationship between image and brand. It is
stated that these two are closely related con-
cepts, mutually influencing each other. The
main distinction lies in the ‘center of gravity’
that these concepts are shaped with. It is
more or less clear from the responses that
brand is viewed as a product of marketing
activities of destination authorities and image
is viewed as more of a product of consumer
perception.
However, there are conflicting statements
about the causality, inclusiveness and inter-
faces between the two. Some experts think
that ‘brand comes first’ and shapes image,
while others think that, as a more abstract,
broader, multi-faceted, complex and less
controllable concept, image shapes brand
and is how a brand is perceived. Image is
considered to be a ‘sub-concept and the core
substance of a destination brand’. One expert
draws attention to the time aspect of these
concepts; that, being ‘developed over time’,
image is a more ‘settled concept’, while
brand ‘is more contemporary and often asso-
ciated with a short period of time’, providing
‘the millennium branding for London’ as
an example. Another expert elaborates on
multi-faceted and uncontrollable aspects of
image, stating that image is what ‘people
have of a place and may not even include the
produced brand’. These results can be con-
sidered as evidence to confirm the second
proposition of this study: There is confusion
between brand and image in tourism destina-
tion context.
How do you compare the ‘brand’ concept in
tourist destination context with the ‘brand’ concept
in other contexts such as consumer products?
This question was intended to clarify the
differences in brand concepts in consumer
Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
Tasci and Kozak
products and travel and tourism contexts.
The differences may also yield the reasons of
why it took longer for travel and tourism
researchers to apply this concept to their
field. Although one expert thinks that the
brand concepts in these two contexts are not
comparable since ‘they come from quite dif-
ferent bases of development’, most experts
reveal several differences, more of difficul-
ties, of branding in tourist destination con-
text.
Some experts mention similarities be-
tween branding in the two fields such as,
provision of reliability and similar goals, but
most experts articulate the inherent differ-
ences between the consumer products and
tourism industries; thus, state the differences
between brand concepts in these fields of
study. As can be seen in Table 2, tourist
destinations, depending on their sizes, are
conceived to have multiple personalities,
many stakeholders, more contact points,
more geographical dispersion, more intang-
ibility, and more visuals. Therefore, branding
in tourist destinations is believed to be less
controllable, more complex, multidimen-
sional, multi-faceted, and far less advanced
than that of consumer products. One expert
proposes that there are ‘minimal (irrelevant)
differences, however, there are many consu-
mer brands and very few ‘‘real’’ tourist desti-
nation brands, because of the limited budgets
and sizes of the destinations’. These results
are not enough to solidify a good compari-
son between branding in consumer products
context and branding in tourism destination
context; therefore, the third proposition also
has evidence of confirmation: There is a lack
of conception in terms of comparisons be-
tween branding in consumer products con-
text and branding in tourist destination
context.
What comes to your mind when you think of
an icon or a symbol for England, Turkey, and
Nigeria?
This is more of an application question; it
was intended to crystallize the abstract ela-
borations on the meaning of brand and its
ramifications by applying it to specific desti-
nations. Destinations of differing levels of
economic development were chosen to re-
Page 311
Destination brands vs destination images
veal as diverse a perspective as possible. This
question was also going to reveal if countries
or specific places or attractions in countries
make up brands in tourism context.
Just as in the responses to the first three
questions, this question also revealed a wide
spectrum of responses for each country.
Although an expert mentioned that Britain is
stuck ‘with its historical past’, only one
expert mentioned history as an icon or a
symbol for England. Different types of things
were mentioned, from policemen, to grass,
and to breakfast, mostly specific attractions.
Only four objects or attractions were men-
tioned by more than one expert: the city of
London, Tower of London, Big Ben, and
lion (as for the rugby and soccer team). A
similar pattern existed in the responses for
Turkey. Only four objects were mentioned
by more than one expert: Istanbul, the
Bosphorus (a bridge in Istanbul), minarets/
mosques, and crescent (moon shape on the
Turkish flag). For Nigeria, responses have
more idiosyncrasies since they include social
problems such as war, corruption, and fam-
ine. Mostly mentioned response (six experts)
is none, nothing and no idea. Other re-
sponses mentioned by more than one expert
are corruption, oil (or petrol), Africa, and
poverty (or famine). It is clear that, for
England and Turkey, there is currently a sign
of branding using their well-known cities of
London and Istanbul, respectively. How-
ever, the same cannot be said for Nigeria,
having no concrete conception of a symbol
in the minds of these experts.
Experts mentioning Istanbul and Lon-
don could be due to a halo effect; the
simplified evaluation of a country based
on its known cities. As Jensen and
Korneliussen70 contend, particular places or
cities of a country, such as London, Paris,
Rome, and Istanbul can have a stronger
image than, and thus, act as ‘halos’ or
‘summary constructs’ for the whole coun-
try. Since an overwhelming majority of
the experts did not provide an icon for
any country, the fourth proposition is also
confirmed: Due to the big size, it would
be difficult to identify one symbol (as one
element of brand) for countries.
Page 312 Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
Can you give an example of a known brand
name of a tourist destination?
This question was intended to reveal if
there is currently any real destination brand-
ing in the tourism and travel industry any-
where in the world. Many destinations,
including countries, cities, specific attrac-
tions, and even a restaurant are mentioned as
brand names of tourist destinations. Only
Australia, Gold Coast, Disneyland, and 100%
Pure NZ are mentioned by more than two
experts. Australia is mentioned by only the
experts from Australia and Gold Coast is
mentioned by an expert from Australia and
one from NZ. Disneyland, however, is men-
tioned by experts from NZ, France and the
USA and 100% Pure NZ is mentioned by
experts from NZ, Slovenia, the USA, and
Spain. Thus, Disneyland can be considered
as a brand at vacation resort level while NZ
can be considered as a brand at country level.
Experts’ mentioning NZ brand could be due
to the article by Morgan et al.71 that deli-
neated the creation and successful imple-
mentation of the ‘100% Pure NZ’ brand that
appeared in the Journal of Brand Management
in 2002.
Another interesting aspect of the responses
to this question is that slogans are provided
as destination brands: I Love NY, 100% Pure
NZ, Simply Niagara, and South Carolina:
Beautiful places smiling faces. This brings the
question of whether or not simple slogans
(catchphrases) can represent the whole brand
concept for a destination. Similar to Proposi-
tion 4, Proposition 5 is also confirmed due
to a lack of overwhelming consensus among
these experts: There is a lack of commonly-
known brands of tourist destinations.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Despite the growing importance of tourism
industry, research on destination branding
has been given insufficient attention to date.
Being exploratory in nature, this study is one
of the few to set the frontiers of this subject
matter. As such, several methodological,
theoretical and practical implications are re-
vealed through this study. First, this study
was intended to establish a consensus regard-
 Tasci and Kozak

ing branding in tourist destination context
by consulting researchers and practitioners in
tourism marketing. However, the results
show that there is a lack of conception and
consensus on this concept among destination
marketing researchers and practitioners. The
low level of response from the experts con-
tacted could mean that there was a corre-
sponding low-level of interest in the subject,
or that the issue is itself confused in their
minds. Second, depending on the academic
literature and the results of this study, it is
possible to develop a model of destination
brand, destination image and ramifications
and interrelationships between the two, as
can be seen in Figure 1. Image in tourism
destination context, as in consumer products
contexts, is an important part of brand.
Destination image contributes to forming
destination brand and to its success in the
market. So long as the image is positive, the
brand would have a strong position in
the market. A brand is therefore more than
an image.
There are two different images involved
in branding: projected and received images.
A destination brand, with all its meanings
and assets, is intended and projected to have
a certain image by the destination authori-
ties. However, the potential and current
visitors might receive all these meanings and
assets, as well as the projected image of the
destination differently due to several factors
including the information coming from in-
dependent sources such as news media.
There would be commonalities between the
projected and received images, namely the
fit between the two; and the size of this fit

Brand, Image and Ramifications and Relationships Between Them Figure 1

Brand equity
Brand, its meanings and assets Brand, its meanings and assets
offered by the destination perceived by the consumer
attributes benefits attributes benefits
Logo
values culture Name values culture
Slogan

Information
about the
destination from
Destination image Fit between Destination image independent
projected by the projected and received by sources
destination received consumers
image

personality users personality users

patents trademarks patents trademarks

relationships relationships

Consumer behavior
(awareness, choice, use, satisfaction, recommendation, trust, loyalty)

Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014 Page 313
Destination brands vs destination images
would reveal the success of the destination
marketing activities. More concrete aspects
of the destination brand, namely, logo,
name, slogan etc. are readily perceptible;
thus, they would be in a common area in this
model. The brand, its meanings and assets
perceived by the consumer would influence
consumer behavior, including, but not lim-
ited to, awareness, choice, use, satisfaction,
recommendation, trust and loyalty. All these
concepts, along with the intricate relation-
ships among them would contribute to the
brand equity of a destination, namely, ‘the
value of a brand, based on the extent to
which it has high brand loyalty, name aware-
ness, perceived quality, strong brand associa-
tions, and other assets such as patents,
trademarks, and channel relationships’.72 Fig-
ure 1 reflects connotations of a workable
definition for both brand and image in the
destination context. Future research could
elaborate on these definitions and demon-
strate how successful destinations have ap-
plied these concepts, where success is
defined by a region’s demonstrable improve-
ment in visitors or tourism revenue per
capita (in the destination). The latter might
be associated with best practices judged by a
panel of experts using a more effective tech-
nique such as Delphi study.
Marketing research is a priori for success-
ful destination branding as articulated by
several researchers.73 Destination managers
need to conduct extensive research before
initiating any branding programs since the
destination can be stuck with a brand stigma-
tized with wrong decisions for a long time.
One should consider the relationship be-
tween the branding of a destination and its
identity. As emphasized previously, brand
may help to differentiate one place or desti-
nation from another. For instance, all places
or destinations can be rich in terms of their
cultural and natural attractions or sources. So
what? Following a sustainable branding strat-
egy, one particular element reflecting the
main characteristic of this location can be
searched and taken out to make contribution
to its marketing strategies, e.g. Big Ben,
Tower Bridge and the Houses of Parliament,
all are located in London. This may then
Page 314 Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
help to construct the identity of the destina-
tion in the target market.
This article does further important re-
search in the area of tourism as it relates to
destination branding and image, whose value
to a destination, from small to large scale,
including nations, is their impact on the
economic and social well-being of not only
those who invest in the promotion and
development of tourism in those destina-
tions, but also the locals who live and get
impacted by tourism in those places. Suc-
cessful image and brand development influ-
ences the nature of this impact, by turning
these impacts into benefits rather than costs.
In this context, the lack of a precise defini-
tion or way to describe brand or image in a
destination context adds significantly. If
there is a disagreement on the meaning of
brand or image fit for sustainable develop-
ment (or happiness for the locals), it would
inhibit our efforts to seek or find ways to
provide it for those locals whose livelihood
depends on the success of such development
efforts. Thus, having a consistent and non-
confuting way to describe brand and image
in a destination context is critical.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE
RESEARCH SUGGESTIONS
As a qualitative study, this research bears
several limitations. A response rate of 19
experts from a universe of 86, despite multi-
ple attempts to get a response, might pose
serious shortcomings. One might suggest
that the experts may not have felt answering
the questions was worth their time; how-
ever, this may not be the underlining reason
considering the increasing attention on this
subject. With the low response rate, inspir-
ing results were reached but it is acknowl-
edged that it could have yielded more valid
results with a higher response rate. Future
studies could be conducted on a larger size
of sample, and results could be crystallized
through Delphi studies with multiple rounds
of interchange among experts.
Although extra effort was spent to get a
sample that represents a multinational pro-

file, experts from some countries did not
respond at all; thus, future studies could
strive to get more multinational perspectives
on this issue in order to make comparisons.
Also, other qualitative research method-
ologies, such as focus groups on a geographi-
cally less diverse group, could be utilized to
reach detailed and specific results. In addi-
tion, because of the e-mail mode, prompting
for more detailed explanations was not possi-
ble. Future studies could utilize face-to-face
in-depth interviews to get more comprehen-
sive results. Also, the lack of anonymity of
this study might have caused some of the
non-response; an HTML file on the WWW
might have been useful in promising anon-
ymity, which could have increased the re-
sponse rate. E-mails were not personalized
for each expert, which could have hindered
a better response rate; future studies could
try personalizing the contact messages for
better response rates. Another limitation is
about the countries included in the question-
naire in terms of an icon or symbol the
experts could think of. More countries could
be included to obtain more comparable re-
sults.
REFERENCES
(1) Woodside, A. G. and Lysonski, S. (1989) ‘A
General Model of Traveler Destination
Choice’, Journal of Travel Research 27(4):
8–14.
(2) Um, S. and Crompton, J. L. (1990) ‘Atti-
tude Determinants in Tourism Destination
Choice’, Annals of Tourism Research 17:
432–48.
(3) Fornell, C. (1992) ‘A National Customer
Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Ex-
perience’, Journal of Marketing 56( January):
6–21.
(4) De Chernatony, L. and Riley, F. D. O.
(1999) ‘Experts’ Views About Defining Ser-
vices Brands and the Principles of Services
Branding’, Journal of Business Research 46:
181–92.
(5) Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L. and Parasura-
man, A. (1993) ‘The Nature and Determi-
nants of Customer Expectations of Service’,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
21(1): 1–12.
(6) Mansfeld, Y. (1992) ‘From Motivation to
Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
Tasci and Kozak
Actual Travel’, Annals of Tourism Research
19: 399–419.
(7) Klenosky, D. and Gitelson, R. E. (1998)
‘Travel Agents’ Destination Recommenda-
tions’, Annals of Tourism Research 25(3):
661–74.
(8) Bloemer, J. and Ruyter, K. (1998) ‘On the
Relationship between Store Image, Store
Satisfaction and Store Loyalty’, European
Journal of Marketing 32(5–6): 499–513; Cro-
nin, J. and Taylor, S. A. (1992) ‘Measuring
Service Quality: A Re-examination and
Extension’, Journal of Marketing 56(3): 55–
68; Sivadas, E. and Baker-Prewitt, J. L.
(2000) ‘An Examination of the Relationship
between Service Quality, Customer Satis-
faction and Store Loyalty’, International Jour-
nal of Retail and Distribution Management
28(2): 73–82.
(9) Oppermann, M. (1998) ‘Destination
Threshold Potential and the Law of Repeat
Visitation’, Journal of Travel Research 37
(November): 131–7; Oppermann, M.
(1999) ‘Predicting Destination Choice: A
Discussion of Destination Loyalty’, Journal
of Vacation Marketing 5(1): 51–65.
(10) Kotler, P. (1997) Marketing Management–
Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Con-
trol (9th edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
(11) Kotler, P. and Gertner, D. (2002) ‘Country
as Brand, Product, and Beyond: A Place
Marketing and Brand Management
Perspective’, Journal of Brand Management
9(4/5): 249–61.
(12) Kotler, ref. 10 above.
(13) Kotler, ref. 10 above.
(14) Thakor, M. V. (1996) ‘Brand Origin: Con-
ceptualization and Review’, The Journal of
Consumer Marketing 13(3): 27–42.
(15) Thakor, ref. 14 above.
(16) Thakor, ref. 14 above.
(17) Cai, L. A. (2002) ‘Cooperative Branding
for Rural Destinations’, Annals of Tourism
Research 29(3): 720–42.
(18) Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Pride, R.
(2002) Destination Branding: Creating the Un-
ique Destination Position. Oxford: Butter-
worth-Heinemann.
(19) Kotler, P., Bowen, J. and Makens, J. (2003)
Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism (3rd
edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc.
(20) Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, R.
(2002) ‘New Zealand, 100% Pure: The
Page 315
Destination brands vs destination images

Creation of a Powerful Niche Destination (36) De Chernatony and Riley, ref. 4 above.
Brand’, Journal of Brand Management 9(4/5): (37) Morgan et al., ref. 20 above.
335–54. (38) Cai, ref. 17 above.
(21) Williams, P. W., Gill, A. M. and Chura, N. (39) Buhalis, ref. 35 above.
(2004) ‘Branding Mountain Destinations: (40) Williams et al., ref. 21 above.
The Battle for ‘‘Peacefulness’’’, Tourism Re- (41) Buhalis, ref. 35 above.
view 59(1): 6–15. (42) Kotler et al., ref. 19 above, p. 312
(22) Milligan, J. W. (1995) ‘Are Banks Ready (43) Rao, A. R. and Ruekert, R. (1994) ‘Brand
for Product Branding?’, United States Banker Alliances as Signals of Product Quality’,
105(April): 39–41. Sloan Management Review 36(1): 87.
(23) Hankinson, G. (2004) ‘Relational Network (44) Rao and Ruekert, ref. 43 above.
Brands: Towards a Conceptual Model of (45) Cai, ref. 17 above.
Place Brands’, Journal of Vacation Marketing (46) Kotler and Gertner, ref. 11 above.
10(2): 109–21. (47) Pritchard and Morgan, ref. 26 above.
(24) Hankinson, ref. 23 above. (48) Cai, ref. 17 above.
(25) Cai, ref. 17 above, p. 734. (49) Morgan et al., ref. 20 above.
(26) Cai, ref. 17 above; Williams et al., ref. 21 (50) Williams et al., ref. 21 above.
above; Morgan et al., ref. 20 above; Pritch- (51) Buhalis, ref. 35 above.
ard, A. and Morgan, N. J. (2001) ‘Culture, (52) Pritchard and Morgan, ref. 26 above.
Identity and Tourism Representation: Mar- (53) Cai, ref. 17 above.; Jensen and Kornelius-
keting Cymru or Wales?’, Tourism Manage- sen, ref. 35 above; Ravinder, R. (2003)
ment 22: 167–79. ‘Destination Image Evaluation: Part II’,
(27) Catalca, H. and Yurtseven, H. R. (2003) Eclipse: The Periodic Publication from Moon-
‘Understanding New Anzacs: A Managerial shine Travel Marketing for Destination
Perspective’, Anatolia 14(2): 127–42. Marketers 10: 1–12; Govers, R. (2003)
(28) Joppe, M., Martin, D. W. and Waalen, J. ‘Destination Image Evaluation: Part II’,
(2001) ‘Toronto’s Image as a Destination: A Eclipse: The Periodic Publication from Moon-
Comparative Importance–Satisfaction Ana- shine Travel Marketing for Destination Market-
lysis by Origin of Visitors’, Journal of Travel ers 10: 1–12.
Research 39(3): 252–60. (54) Kozak, M. (2003) ‘Destination Image Eva-
(29) Williams et al., ref. 21 above. luation: Part II’, Eclipse: The Periodic Publica-
(30) Williams et al., ref. 21 above, p. 7. tion from Moonshine Travel Marketing for
(31) Morgan et al., ref. 20 above. Destination Marketers 10: 1–12.
(32) Gnoth, J. (2002) ‘Leveraging Export Brands (55) Cai, ref. 17 above.
Through a Tourism Destination Brand’, (56) Pritchard and Morgan, ref. 26 above.
Journal of Brand Management 9(4/5): 262–80. (57) Cai, ref. 17 above.
(33) Williams et al., ref. 21 above, p. 7. (58) Jensen and Korneliussen, ref. 35 above;
(34) De Chernatony and Riley, ref. 4 above. Kotler et al., ref. 19 above, p. 998.
(35) Cai, ref. 17 above; De Chernatony and (59) Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G. M. (1990) ‘In
Riley, ref. 4 above; Buhalis, D. (2000) Search of Brand Image: A Foundation
‘Marketing the Competitive Destination of Analysis’, Advances in Consumer Research 17:
the Future’, Tourism Management 21(1): 97– 110–19.
116; D’Hautresse, A. M. (2001) ‘Destina- (60) Kotler and Gertner, ref. 11 above.
tion Branding in a Hostile Environment’, (61) Hunt, J. D. (1975) ‘Image as a Factor in
Journal of Travel Research 39(February): 300– Tourist Development’, Journal of Travel Re-
7; Ekinci, Y. (2003) ‘From Destination Im- search 13(Winter): 1–7.
age to Destination Branding: An Emerging (62) Millman, A. and Pizam, A. (1995) ‘The
Area of Research’, e-Review of Tourism Role of Awareness and Familiarity with a
Research 1(2), URL (consulted 15 May Destination: The Central Florida Case’,
2004): http://ertr.tamu.edu; Jensen, O. Journal of Travel Research 33(Winter): 21–7.
and Korneliussen, T. (2002) ‘Discrimin- (63) Coshall, J. T. (2000) ‘Measurement of
ating Perceptions of a Peripheral ‘‘Nordic Tourists’ Images: The Repertory Grid Ap-
Destination’’ Among European Tourists’, proach’, Journal of Travel Research 39(Au-
Tourism and Hospitality Research 3(4): gust): 85–9.
319–30. (64) Crompton, J. L. (1979) ‘An Assessment of

Page 316 Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014

the Image of Mexico as a Vacation Destina-
tion and the Influence of Geographical
Location Upon that Image’, Journal of Travel
Research 17(1): 18–23.
(65) Bramwell, B. and Rawding, L. (1996)
‘Tourism Marketing Images of Industrial
Cities’ Annals of Tourism Research 23:
201–21.
(66) Tasci, A. D. A. and Knutson, B. J. (2003)
‘Online Research Modes: Waiting for Lei-
sure, Hospitality and Tourism Researchers’,
Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing
10(3–4): 57–83.
(67) Tasci and Knutson, ref. 66 above; Kaye, B.
K. and Johnson, T. J. (1999) ‘Research
Methodology: Taming the Cyber Fron-
tier’, Social Science Computer Review 17(3):
323–37; Schillewaert, N., Langerak, F. and
Duhamel, T. (1998) ‘Non-probability
Sampling for WWW Surveys: A Compari-
son of Methods’, Journal of the Market Re-
Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on May 25, 2014
Tasci and Kozak
search Society 40(4): 307–22; Tse, A. C. B.
(1998) ‘Comparing the Response Rate,
Response Speed and Response Quality of
Two Methods of Sending Questionnaires:
E-mail vs. Mail’, Journal of the Market Re-
search Society 40(4): 353–61; Weible, R.
and Wallace, J. (1998) ‘Cyber Research:
The Impact of the Internet on Data
Collection’, Marketing Research 10(3):
19–24.
(68) Kaye and Johnson, ref. 67 above; Tse, ref.
67 above.
(69) Kaye and Johnson, ref. 67 above; Tasci and
Knutson, ref. 66 above; Tse, ref. 67 above.
(70) Jensen and Korneliussen, ref. 35 above.
(71) Morgan et al., ref. 20 above.
(72) Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (1996) Princi-
ples of Marketing (7th edn). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 284
(73) Morgan et al., ref. 20 above; Kotler and
Gertner, ref. 11 above.
Page 317