International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

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

How can integrated marketing communications and advanced

technology influence the creation of customer-based brand equity?
Evidence from the hospitality industry夽
Maja Šerić ∗ , Irene Gil-Saura 1 , María Eugenia Ruiz-Molina 2
Marketing and Market Research Department, University of Valencia, Avenida de los Naranjos s/n, Valencia, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As the most recent approach of communication management, the integrated marketing communication
Received 5 December 2012 (IMC) programmes, enhanced by the advancements in information and communication technology (ICT),
Received in revised form are considered an important contribution to the brand equity building. However, hardly any research
24 December 2013
has been done on the role of this new communication practice in the hospitality industry. Moreover,
Accepted 25 February 2014
previous studies have mainly focused on managers’ opinions, overlooking customers’ perceptions of
both marketing communications and advanced technology. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to
Keywords:
examine, from the customer perspective, the impact of integrated marketing communications on hotel
Integrated marketing communications
Advanced technology
brand equity, considered as a multidimensional construct composed of brand image, perceived quality,
Brand equity and brand loyalty. In addition, the moderating role of advanced technology on these relationships is
Brand image tested. While the findings show positive relationships between the studied constructs, the moderating
Perceived quality role of technology is not corroborated.
Brand loyalty © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Changes produced in the market have led to changes in the
practice of marketing and communication management, as one sin-
gle marketing communication tool could not achieve marketing
communication purposes by itself (Kitchen et al., 2004). Accord-
ingly, the integrated marketing communications (IMC) approach
appeared as a more efficient and sophisticated communication dis-
cipline that quickly responds to the increasingly changing market
conditions (Kim et al., 2004).
Although the idea of integration and coordination has a long
history, what is new about IMC is that technological develop-
ments have made possible to put this idea into operational practice
(Kliatchko, 2005). In fact, advancements in information and com-
munication technology (ICT) are considered as one of the most
significant background factors of IMC (Kitchen et al., 2004; Gurău,
夽 The authors are grateful for the support of the project ECO2010/17475 of the
Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 963 82 89 61; fax: +34 963 82 83 33.
E-mail addresses: Maja.Seric@uv.es (M. Šerić), Irene.Gil@uv.es (I. Gil-Saura),
M.Eugenia.Ruiz@uv.es (M.E. Ruiz-Molina).
1
Tel.: +34 963 82 83 12; fax: +34 963 82 83 33.
2
Tel.: +34 961 62 51 77; fax: +34 963 82 83 33.
2008; Kliatchko, 2009). The unique ability of the advanced technol-
ogy to provide two-way, customised, one-to-one, database-driven
communication programmes enabled firms to move towards the
IMC paradigm (Kim et al., 2004). Thus, owing to advanced tech-
nology solutions, IMC programmes are able to capture precise data
on customers. This means that database management is of crucial
importance for the IMC approach, as it centres on a well-defined
target (Kliatchko, 2005).
Whereas the acceptance of IMC is growing rapidly (Edmiston-
Strasser, 2009; Kitchen and Schultz, 2009), the literature suggests
that further contributions are needed to consolidate the con-
cept (McGrath, 2005). In particular, the research on IMC is pretty
neglected within the hospitality industry (Šerić and Gil-Saura,
2011, 2012a, 2012b), where the need for integration has proven to
be as necessary as in other industries (Hudson, 2008). In addition, it
seems that consumers’ perceptions of marketing communications
are often forgotten in IMC research (Gould, 2004). This might be
surprising as IMC advocates for an “outside-in” approach, mean-
ing that it is first looking at the integration from the customer
or prospect view, rather than a traditional inside-out perspective
(Schultz, 1993; Anantachart, 2004; Kliatchko, 2005, 2009). In this
sense, Shultz (1994) pointed out that consumers’ perceptions of
the integration of marketing communications need to be consid-
ered in order to measure efficiently the return on investment of IMC
campaign. Actually, the great change in the communication process

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.02.008
0278-4319/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Šerić et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156
refers to the fact that the consumers are currently taking control of
it, as they decide whether and when to receive the message (Gurău,
2008; Kliatchko, 2009; Keller, 2009; Kitchen and Schultz, 2009).
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the
effectiveness of marketing communication considered as a key
benefit of building a strong brand (Keller, 2009). Accordingly, the
literature has emphasised the importance of research of customer-
based brand equity concept, as it represents the result of marketing
communication activities (Duncan and Moriarty, 1997; Reid, 2002;
Keller, 2009) and a key driver of business’s success (Prasad and
Dev, 2000). However, as Keller (2009) stated, these marketing com-
munications activities have to be integrated to deliver a consistent
message and accomplish the strategic positioning. Thus, academics
and practitioners in the field of marketing and branding have
supported the notion that IMC plays an important role in build-
ing and maintaining stakeholder relationships, and in leveraging
these relationships to create customer-based brand equity (Keller,
1993; Duncan and Moriarty, 1997; Reid, 2002, 2005; Anantachart,
2004; Madhavaram et al., 2005; Baidya and Maity, 2010; Kerr and
Drennan, 2010; Delgado-Ballester et al., 2012; Šerić and Gil-Saura,
2012b).
If we focus on the hospitality industry, three brand equity
dimensions were found significant in this specific context: (1)
brand image, (2) perceived quality, and (3) brand loyalty (e.g.,
Kim et al., 2003; Kim and Kim, 2005; Kayaman and Arasli, 2007).
Although there has been considerable research on these dimen-
sions and their inter-relationship within the hotel sector, scholars
have paid hardly any attention to the role that IMC might play in
the creation of customer-based hotel brand equity (e.g., Šerić and
Gil-Saura, 2012b).
Thereby, in this study, we intend to fill the existing gap in
the literature by empirically testing the impact of perceived IMC
on creation of brand equity, specifically on the dimensions of
customer-based brand equity that were found significant within
the hotel context. In addition, the relationships between the three
customer-based hotel brand equity dimensions are considered, as
well as the moderating role of advanced technology on the rela-
tionships between IMC and brand equity.
2. Conceptual framework
2.1. Integrated marketing communications in the tourism and
hospitality industry
Due to the high fragmentation of tourism markets and the
media, consumers find themselves with fragmented images in a
confusing marketing environment. This is why marketers operat-
ing in this sector must coordinate all communication messages and
sources in order to deliver a consistent, unified message through
their promotional activities (Hudson, 2008). The integrated mar-
keting communications (IMC) approach is an appropriate response
to this need, as it adopts the holistic view of marketing communi-
cations in order to deliver a consistent message and achieve major
impact through the integration of all elements of promotional mix
(Keller, 2009).
After reviewing 60 empirical studies on IMC published since
2000, we found only a few of them applied in the tourism sec-
tor in general (e.g., Skinner, 2005; Elliott and Boshoff, 2008; Wang
et al., 2009; Dinnie et al., 2010) and in the hospitality industry in
particular (e.g., Kulluvaara and Tornberg, 2003; Šerić and Gil-Saura,
2011, 2012a,b) (see Table 1). For example, Skinner (2005) analysed
the messages that the nation’s key stakeholders sent out on web-
sites and in key documents while promoting Wales. The results
indicated that the “one-voice” principle of IMC was not respected,
due to the inconsistent promotion of the country based on different
145
images and weak messages. Elliott and Boshoff (2008) interviewed
316 managers in small tourism enterprises in South Africa in order
to analyse the impact of different business orientations on IMC.
The findings revealed a positive impact of: (1) market orientation,
(2) entrepreneurial orientation, and (3) pro-active competitor ori-
entation on IMC implementation. In addition, Wang et al. (2009)
studied the role of IMC on selection of a heritage destination
among 197 visitors of Lukang. The authors identified three fac-
tors of IMC: (1) public relations, (2) advertisement, and (3) direct
sale and promotion and showed that the influence of each fac-
tor changed within different demographic groups. Finally, Dinnie
et al. (2010) examined the extent to which the key organisations
engaged in nation branding activities (i.e., promotion organisa-
tions, investment agencies, national tourism organisations, and
embassies) follow the principle of coordination that characterises
the IMC approach. Seven key dimensions of inter-organisational
coordination emerged from their findings (i.e., sector, organisation
domicile, mode, strategy formulation, nature, frequency, and target
audience).
The study of Kulluvaara and Tornberg (2003) was the first to
examine IMC in the hotel context, although limited to a case study
of Icehotel (i.e., a hotel built of ice and snow and a Swedish tourist
attraction) and a description of its successful IMC strategy. Nev-
ertheless, the IMC research within the hospitality industry was
initiated by Šerić and Gil-Saura (2011, 2012a,b), in particular, in
their studies conducted in high-quality hotels of Croatia. They first
investigated the level of implementation of IMC and ICT from the
managers’ point of view. The findings showed a high degree of IMC
and ICT implementation in first-class and luxury hotels in Dalmatia,
the largest region on the coast of Croatia. However, whereas the ICT
application increased with the hotel category, the IMC implementa-
tion decreased (Šerić and Gil-Saura, 2011). In addition, the authors
compared managers’ and guests’ perceptions of IMC, finding small
but significant differences between the two compared groups. They
concluded that managers believed that the IMC implementation
was greater than the hotel guests actually perceived it (Šerić and
Gil-Saura, 2012b). This gap is in line with previous research and
might be explained by the fact that receiving the message is always
a creative process that cannot be planned, executed, nor controlled
by the sender. In other words, marketers should be aware that mes-
sages sent do not necessarily equal messages received, as nowadays
customers frequently redefine corporate messages and symbols,
and modify or even pervert their meanings in ways not imagined by
their creators (Christensen et al., 2009). Finally, in their most recent
study, Šerić and Gil-Saura (2012a) tested the relationships among
ICT, IMC, and brand equity from the customer perspective. The find-
ings revealed positive relationships between the studied variables.
Still, the authors focused only on the mediating role of IMC between
ICT and brand equity and did not analyse the inter-relationship
among brand equity dimensions. Moreover, no attempt was made
to examine the moderating role of technology on the IMC impact.
The main limitation of this sequence of studies provided by Šerić
and Gil-Saura (2011, 2012a,b) is a small sample size. This is why the
authors suggested reconsidering the perception of IMC and its role
in brand equity creation among a greater number of respondents,
approaching, moreover, the countries with more developed hotel
industries.
2.2. Customer-based brand equity in the hospitality industry
Customer-based brand equity is considered as one of the top
issues in the hospitality industry (Kim et al., 2008), showing cur-
rently considerable empirical evidence in this specific area (e.g.,
Kimpakorn and Tocquer, 2010; So and King, 2010; Hyun and Kim,
2011; Malik and Naeem, 2011; Nam et al., 2011; Tasci and Denizci-
Guillet, 2011; Dioko and So, 2012; Hsu et al., 2012a,b; Šerić and
146 M. Šerić et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156

Table 1
IMC in the tourism and hospitality industry.

Authors IMC dimensions Items Sample

Kulluvaara and Tornberg (2003) Communication strategy process 28 Icehotel in Sweden

Marketing communication tools 16
Skinner (2005) N/A N/A Marketing messages representing Wales as
a brand
Elliott and Boshoff Consistency 1 316 managers of small
(2008) Integration 1 tourism enterprises in
Synergy of marketing communication tools 1 South Africa
Wang et al. (2009) Direct sale & promotion 9 197 visitors of Lukang –
Public relations 6 a popular heritage
Advertisement 5 township in Taiwan
Dinnie et al. (2010) Sector 10 members of
Organisation domicile organisations
Mode representing five
Strategy formulation N/A Association of
Nature Southeast Asian
Frequency Nations
Target audience
Šerić and Gil-Saura Unified communications for consistent message 5 Managers of 17 four-
(2011, 2012b)a and image and five-star hotels in
Differentiated communications to multiple 5 the Dalmatia region in
customer groups Croatia
Database-centred communications for tangible 4
results
Relationship fostering communications with 4
existing customers
Šerić and Gil-Saura (2012a,b)a Unified communications for consistent message 5 101 guests who stayed in 13 high-quality
and image in the region of Dalmatia in Croatia

Note: N/A = not available.

a
The study of Šerić and Gil-Saura (2012b) approached managers of 15 hotels and 118 guests.

Gil-Saura, 2012b). However, despite the fact that the hotel brand
equity concept has gained considerable interest among practition-
ers and academics, there is a gap in the literature as to what is meant
by the term and how it should be measured (Prasad and Dev, 2000;
Kim and Kim, 2005; Bailey and Ball, 2006; Kayaman and Arasli,
2007; So and King, 2010). In their proposal of a numerical brand
equity index from a consumer-centric perspective, Prasad and Dev
(2000) suggested that brand equity in the hotel context is consid-
ered as “the favourable or unfavourable attitudes and perceptions
that are formed and influence a customer to book at a hotel brand”
(p. 24). In addition, Xu and Chan (2010) provided a conceptual
framework for understanding customer-based hotel brand equity,
categorising the concept into its attitudinal (i.e., brand knowledge
– divided into brand awareness, brand associations, and quality of
experience) and behavioural aspects (i.e., brand loyalty). Accord-
ing to this conceptualisation, three brand knowledge dimensions
are critical in determining brand equity and overall brand loyalty.
However, it is questionable whether the brand associations and
the quality of experience are indeed distinct and separable con-
cepts, which is why further research is necessary to corroborate
this proposal.
Among different proposals of customer-based brand equity
dimensions in the hospitality industry (see Table 2), we observe
that the conceptualisation provided by Aaker (1991, 1996) is the
most frequently applied one (e.g., Kim et al., 2003, 2008; Kim
and Kim, 2004, 2005; Kayaman and Arasli, 2007; Lee and Kim,
2009; Nel et al., 2009; Hyun and Kim, 2011; Malik and Naeem,
2011). Aaker (1991, 1996) identified the following five brand equity
components: (1) brand loyalty, (2) perceived quality, (3) brand
associations (referred to as brand image), (4) brand awareness, and
(5) other proprietary brand assets (comprising patents, trademarks,
and channel relationships). Yoo and Donthu (2001) suggested that
the last dimension of this proposal is not relevant to consumer
perception, due to the fact that customer-based brand equity rep-
resents the assessment of cognitive and behavioural brand equity
through a consumer survey.
As we have previously pointed out, the role of awareness in
brand equity creation in the hotel context is questionable because
several recent studies revealed that it is not a significant dimen-
sion of brand equity (e.g., Kim et al., 2003; Kim and Kim, 2004,
2005; Bailey and Ball, 2006; Kayaman and Arasli, 2007; So and King,
2010). Thus, the studies carried out in the hospitality industry of
Korea, specifically in luxury hotels (Kim et al., 2003; Kim and Kim,
2005) and chain restaurants (Kim and Kim, 2004, 2005) suggested
that brand awareness was a significant construct affecting compa-
nies’ performance, but it was not loaded highly in the context of
hotel brand equity. Likewise, according to the statistical results of
the Kayaman and Arasli’s (2007) study, brand awareness was not
a significant dimension of hotel brand equity for five-star hotels of
North Cyprus. Furthermore, the effect of brand awareness on brand
equity was also found to be not significant in the study of So and
King (2010), conducted among 288 tourists in Australia who have
previously stayed in a hotel. Hence, although the brand awareness
is a critical factor for the brand equity, it is not significant in the
hotel context. As Bailey and Ball (2006) pointed out in their study
on meanings of hotel brand equity, this might be explained by the
fact that there are many well-known hotel brands that are incon-
sistent in their offer, and therefore, suffer from poor perceptions
of their quality. Accordingly, a brand name only will not guarantee
the success within the hospitality sector (Olsen et al., 1998). So and
King (2010) explained this by the fact that experience-based per-
ceptions, rather than brand awareness, affect customer behaviour.
This is why, in the present study, we consider brand equity as a con-
struct composed of three dimensions, i.e., brand image, perceived
quality, and brand loyalty.
2.3. The impact of IMC on customer-based brand equity
The IMC supporters consider the concept as a revolution
meant to enhance marketing efforts and create brand equity
(McGrath, 2005). The branding literature suggests that the integra-
tion of marketing communication programmes can form consumer
 M. Šerić et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156 147

Table 2
Customer-based brand equity dimensions in the hospitality industry.

Authors Brand equity dimensions Items Sample

Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995) Awareness 90 MBA students for the hotel

Brand awareness sample and 92 users for the
Advertising awareness N/A household cleanser sample
Brand associations
Perceived quality
Prasad and Dev (2000) Brand performance 6 hypothetical hotels
Satisfaction
Return intent
Price–value perception N/A
Brand preference
Brand awareness
Top of mind brand recall
Kim et al. (2003) Brand loyalty 6 513 Korean guests of 12 luxury
Perceived quality 11 hotels
Brand image 14
Brand awareness 3
Kim and Kim (2004) Brand loyalty 6 394 guests of seven quick service
Perceived quality 10 restaurant brands in Seoul, Korea.
Brand image 14
Brand awareness 3
Kim and Kim (2005) Brand loyalty 6 513 Korean guests of 12 luxury
Perceived quality 11a 10b hotels and 394 Korean guests of 13
Brand image 14 chain restaurants in Seoul, Korea
Brand awareness 3
Kayaman and Arasli (2007) Brand loyalty 4 345 guests of six five-star hotels in
Perceived quality 22 North Cyprus
Brand image 8
Brand awareness 3
Kim et al. (2008) Brand loyalty 2 264 travellers who stayed at one of
Perceived quality 4 the six selected midscale USA
Brand awareness/association 3/2 hotels
Lee and Kim (2009) Perceived service quality 6 161 customers of airline companies, 177 customers of
Brand image 15 bank/card services companies, and 150 customers of
Brand awareness 2 department stores – all guests of luxury hotels in Seoul
Brand loyalty 4 Korea in five recent years
Organizational image of the hotel 9
Symbolic image of the hotel 6
Nel et al. (2009) Brand image 11 169 guests of three brands within three price
Perceived quality 11 categories of the City Lodge Hotels Ltd group,
Brand loyalty 6 located in the Gauteng metropolitan area,
Brand awareness 1 South Africa
Denizci and Tasci (2010) Brand awareness 3 Tourism product (i.e., hotel,
Brand image 7 restaurant, resort or destination)
Perceived quality 9
Value 3
Brand loyalty 5
Kimpakorn and Tocquer (2010) Brand awareness 1 238 guests and 238 employees of
Perceived quality 6 the international luxury hotel
Brand differentiation 2 chains in Bangkok, Thailand
Core service brand associations 10
Supporting service associations 3
Brand trust 7
Brand relationships 8
So and King (2010) Brand equity 4 288 tourists in a major Australian
Brand awareness 5 tourist destination who have
Brand meaning 9 previously stayed in a hotel
Perceived value 3
Brand personality 3
Organisational associations 3
Company’s presented brand 8
Advertising 4
Promotions 4
External brand communications 10
Word of mouth 5
Publicity 5
Customer experience 16
Core service 5
Servicescape 4
Employee service 7
Xu and Chan (2010) Brand awareness N/A
Brand associations N/A
Quality of experience
Brand loyalty
148 M. Šerić et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156

Table 2 (Continued)

Authors Brand equity dimensions Items Sample

Hyun and Kim (2011) Brand awareness 4 188 guest of five chain restaurant
Brand image 10 brand in South Korea
Perceived quality 9
Brand loyalty 6
Malik and Naeem (2011) Brand loyalty 6 200 guests of 8 four- and five-star
Perceived quality 22 hotels in Pakistan
Brand Image 14
Brand awareness 3
Nam et al. (2011) Service quality 7 378 British customers of 32 well
Physical quality 4 known hotel and restaurant brands
Staff behaviour 3
Ideal self-congruence 3
Brand identification 3
Lifestyle-congruence 3
Tasci and Denizci-Guillet (2011) Brand familiarity 1 46 undergraduate students of a
Brand image 1 Tourism and Hotel Management
Product and service quality 2 School in Hong Kong, China
Consumer value 1
Brand value 1
Loyalty 4
Dioko and So (2012) Social image 4 494 visitors of Macao, China who
Performance 4 stayed in Macao’s hotels
Trustworthiness of communication 3
Attachment 3
Value 3
Hsu et al. (2012a) Perceived quality 3 1346 guests of 29 four- and
Brand awareness 3 five-star hotels located in 12 major
Brand image 4 cities in China
Management trust 3
Brand reliability 3
Brand loyalty 3
Hsu et al. (2012b) Brand awareness 2 Managers and 226 clients of T
Brand associations 3 restaurant in Taiwan, China
Perceived quality 3
Šerić and Gil-Saura (2012b) Brand image 7 101 guests who stayed in seven
Perceived quality 3 luxury (68) and six first class (33)
Brand loyalty 5 hotels in Dalmatia, Croatia
Note: N/A = not available.
a
Items used for hotels’ questionnaire.
b
Items used for restaurants’ questionnaire.

perceptions of the product or service and can help to create dif-
ferent attributes of brand image (Keller, 1993, 2009; Anantachart,
2004). In particular, IMC can influence and control the meanings
linked with the brand, and create and reflect the brand image,
thus influencing the way consumers perceive the product (Cobb-
Walgren et al., 1995). As brand image is shaped in the consumers’
memory through brand associations, the consumer links the brand
to both favourable and unfavourable concepts (Keller, 2003). In
addition, IMC can create brand meaning in the consumers’ minds
by strategically linking tangible and intangible brand associations
with certain properties (Keller, 2009). The strength of brand asso-
ciations from communication effects will actually depend on the
integration of brand identities (i.e., brand name, logo, and sym-
bol) within the supporting marketing programmes (Keller, 1993).
Specifically, Kandampully and Suhartanto (2000, 2003) suggested
that, together with other marketing variables, communication can
directly affect the hotel’s image. Moreover, consistent message may
create a stronger image suggestion in consumers’ memory than a
message that delivers conflicting or not highly consistent informa-
tion. Despite the medium that message is delivered through (i.e.,
print, television, Internet, or radio), if the message is consistent,
it will enhance the possibility that the brand’s intended image is
retained by consumers (McGrath, 2005). Therefore, we can con-
clude that the customer will perceive a strong brand image when
he perceives a consistent message through different communica-
tion tools (Dewhirst and Davis, 2005; Keller, 2003; Madhavaram
et al., 2005).
In addition, Israeli et al. (2000) reported that repetition in mar-
keting communications could be a signal or indicator of quality
and, moreover, significant in creating and maintaining customer
loyalty. Similarly, Keller (2009) suggested that IMC can stimulate
intense and active consumer-brand loyalty relationships by facili-
tating a strong connection between customers and the brand. As
McGrath (2005) noted, if consumers are exposed to consistent
brand messages, these messages can help maintain brand loyalty.
On the other hand, if consumers receive inconsistent messages,
they can have negative impact on the initial learning about the
brand (Ehrenberg et al., 2002). When focusing on this relation-
ship in the hotel context, Imrie and Fyall (2000) suggested that
hotel’s promotional mix strategies can ensure customer retention
and loyalty. Similarly, Hennessey et al. (2010) pointed out that the
purpose of many tourism marketing communication campaigns is
to build-on or change perceptions of customers in order to influ-
ence their behavioural intentions. Therefore, from an individual
customer perspective, one of the most important goals of IMC is to
effectively generate and maintain brand equity through encourage-
ment and reinforcement of brand relationships with the customers
and prospects (Anantachart, 2004).
2.4. The role of advanced technology
The rise of advanced ICT has dramatically changed advertising
and marketing communication planning in general, and IMC plan-
ning in particular (Peltier et al., 2003). The literature has evidenced
 M. Šerić et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156 149

Table 3
Advanced technology in the hospitality industry.

Authors ICT dimensions Items Sample

Siguaw et al. (2000) Internet reservations 1 5.287 US hotels

Management e-mail systems 1
In-room modems 1
Voice mail 1
Interactive television guide 1
Teleconferencing 1
Automatic teller machines 1
In-room Internet access 1
Cell phone rentals 1
In-room fax machine 1
Gilbert and Language localisation 1 140 Yahoo hotel
Powell-Perry (2001) Special promotions 1 websites
Virtual tour 1
What’s new 1
Property information 1
On-line directory 1
Corporate information 1
Electronic brochure 1
Lee et al. (2003) Guest-room technologies 10 30 managers of three-,
Service-operation technologies 17 four-, and five-star
Impact of technology on sales and marketing 26 hotels in Australia
Sigala (2003) Room division ICT 10 Managers of 93
Food and beverage division ICT 4 three-star hotels in UK
In room ICT 6
General ICT 8
Property management systems 6
Web site 6
E-mail 7
Intranet 7
Extranet 7
Customer data warehouse 6
Ham et al. (2005) Front-office applications 5 648 employees of 13
Back-office applications 6 five- and 8 four-star
Restaurant and banquet management systems 4 hotels in Seoul, South
Guest-related interface applications 5 Korea
Law and Jogaratnam Operating systems used in hotels 9 21 managers of hotels
(2005) Application software/systems used in hotels 10 in Hong Kong
Hardware platforms 12
IT equipment and services provided for guests 9
Hotels have a homepage on the Internet 6
Hotels have a connection to the central reservation system (CRS) 1
Sahadev and Islam E-mail-based booking 1 Executives of 95 hotels
(2005) Online real-time booking 1 in Thailand
Global distribution system 1
Internet centre in hotel 1
Internet in all rooms 1
Wireless internet in hotel 1
Local area network for back office 1
Property management software 1
E-checkouts from rooms 1
Beldona and Cobanoglu (2007) Guest room technologies 24 265 US consumers who have previously stayed in a hotel
Ruiz-Molina et al. In-house ICT Managers of 200
(2011) Hardware 17 three-, four-, and
Connectivity 5 five-star hotels in Spain
Software 7
Guest service equipment 3
In room equipment 9
ICT for external use
CRM 4
Communications with customers 5
Advertising 5
Online order reception 12
Verma et al. (2012) Sites consulted at three purchase stages 7 2830 guests in USA
Mobile innovations 3 hotels

several denominations which reflect the synergy between the ICT
and IMC, such as: (1) interactive integrated marketing communi-
cation (Peltier et al., 2003), (2) integrated Web-based marketing
communication (Barker and Angelopulo, 2004; Angelopulo and
Barker, 2005), (3) online marketing communications (Jensen and
Jepsen, 2008), (4) integrated online marketing communication
(Gurău, 2008), and (5) interactive marketing communications
(Keller, 2009). The basic idea of these approaches is the interactive
nature of new media and the creation of personalised messages
consistent with the communication campaign theme (Peltier et al.,
2003).
Furthermore, the hospitality literature supports the essen-
tial role of ICT on company productivity (Siguaw et al., 2000;
Sigala, 2003) and improvement of business operations (Law and
Jogaratnam, 2005). The implementation of new technologies in
hotel companies results in notable advantages in management
150 M. Šerić et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156

knowledge (Li et al., 2012), competition, increasing profitability, H2: IMC perception has a positive impact on perceived quality.
cost reduction, efficiency, and information-sharing (Lee et al., 2003; H3: IMC perception has a positive impact on brand loyalty.
Ham et al., 2005). In addition, Gilbert and Powell-Perry (2001)
reported that the Web is an effective marketing relationship tool,
Furthermore, the inter-relationship exists between the three
while Lee et al. (2003) found that, according to hotel managers’
brand equity components in the hotel sector. Thus, perceived qual-
opinions and beliefs, technology can also enhance the quality of
ity can influence image (e.g., Kandampully and Hu, 2007; Kayaman
service, contribute to lifting the overall image of the hotel, and
and Arasli, 2007; Malik and Naeem, 2011) and customer loyalty.
encourage customer loyalty.
The impact of perceived quality on customer loyalty is both direct
One criticism of much of the literature on ICT is that scholars
(e.g., Kandampully and Hu, 2007; Kayaman and Arasli, 2007; Hyun
have paid little attention to the guest perception of advanced tech-
and Kim, 2011; Malik and Naeem, 2011; Hsu et al., 2012a) and
nology (e.g., Beldona and Cobanoglu, 2007; Verma et al., 2012)
mediated by image (e.g., Kandampully and Hu, 2007). Moreover,
whereas a great number of theoretical and empirical studies have
numerous studies confirmed a positive influence of brand image
mostly focused on the managers’ perceptions of different technol-
on brand loyalty within the hospitality industry (e.g., Kandampully
ogy solutions within the hotel context (e.g. Siguaw et al., 2000; Lee
and Suhartanto, 2000, 2003; Kandampully and Hu, 2007; Hyun and
et al., 2003; Sigala, 2003; Law and Jogaratnam, 2005; Sahadev and
Kim, 2011; Hsu et al., 2012a). Therefore, we propose the following
Islam, 2005; Ruiz-Molina et al., 2011) (see Table 3).
hypotheses:
This lack of ICT studies based on guest perceptions might be
surprising, as the hospitality industry managed to adjust itself to
the nowadays digital environment (Lee et al., 2003), where con- H4: Perceived quality has a positive impact on brand image.
sumers are adopting a more proactive attitude as they explicitly H5: Perceived quality has a positive impact on brand loyalty.
express their opinions and perceptions (Gurău, 2008; Sigala, 2012). H6: Brand image has a positive impact on brand loyalty.
Therefore, as Mulhern (2009) suggested, we believe that the correct
way to understand this new digital landscape where information,
marketing communications, and advanced technology converge, is Finally, the conceptual framework has evidenced that syner-
from the customer perspective. This is why we decided to adopt gies exist between IMC and advanced ICT (e.g., Peltier et al., 2003;
a customer-centric approach and to examine our research model Barker and Angelopulo, 2004; Angelopulo and Barker, 2005; Gurău,
from the hotel guests’ point of view. The hypotheses and the pro- 2008; Jensen and Jepsen, 2008; Keller, 2009). In addition, as noted
posed model are presented in the following section. by Lee et al. (2003), new technologies can improve brand image
and perceived quality and they might become a source of long-
lasting relationships with clients. As a number of authors suggested,
3. Hypotheses and proposed model
academics should also consider the role of advanced technology
solutions in order to understand consumers and their relationship
From the literature review we conclude that IMC can affect
with the brand and the company (e.g., Schultz, 1999; Reid, 2002;
brand equity and that further empirical evidence is necessary
Kliatchko, 2009). Therefore, we believe that advanced ICT might
to corroborate this impact (e.g., Reid, 2005; Anantachart, 2004;
exert a moderating role on the relationships between IMC and
Madhavaram et al., 2005; Kerr and Drennan, 2010; Delgado-
brand equity dimensions. Accordingly, we propose the last group
Ballester et al., 2012; Šerić and Gil-Saura, 2012b). We also observe
of hypotheses:
that a number of studies found that three dimensions of brand
equity are significant in the hotel context, i.e., brand image,
perceived quality, and brand loyalty (e.g., Kim et al., 2003; Kim H7: The higher the level of advanced ICT perception, the stronger
and Kim, 2005; Kayaman and Arasli, 2007). On the basis of these the relationships between:
considerations, we posit the following hypotheses: H7a: IMC and brand image.
H7b: IMC and perceived quality.
H1: IMC perception has a positive impact on brand image. H7c: IMC and brand loyalty. (see Fig. 1).

BRAND
IMAGE
H6(+)
H1(+) H7a(+)

H4(+)

H2(+) PERCEIVED ADVANCED ICT

IMC H6(+)
PERCEPTION QUALITY PERCEPTION
H7b(+)

H7c(+) H5(+)

H3(+)

BRAND
LOYALTY

Direct relationship
- - - - - - - - - - - - Moderating effect

Fig. 1. Research model.

 M. Šerić et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156
4. Method
4.1. Measures
We employed validated scales to measure guest perception
of IMC, customer-based hotel brand equity dimensions, and
guest perception of ICT advancements. Thus, IMC perception
was assessed with the first dimension proposed by Lee and
Park (2007), named “unified communications for consistent mes-
sage and image”. These authors proposed a scale that represents
improvements over the previous IMC scales, as it was designed
specifically for the development of IMC measurement and not for
another purpose, its procedures are more rigorous in methodology,
and it is more comprehensive than other scales. We believe that the
first dimension of their proposal, which we decided to employ in
this study, can be easily evaluated by the customer. This is because
it primarily focuses on influencing product’s recognition, image,
consumer’s preferences, and attitudes. This dimension is consid-
ered to be a fundamental aspect of IMC and has been identified
at the early beginning of its evolution. The creation of a clear and
consistent image is emphasised by unifying messages and coordi-
nating different marketing communication tools. In other words,
this IMC aspect refers to the marketing communication activities
meant to create a single positioning of a brand by delivering a con-
sistent message through various communication channels (Lee and
Park, 2007). Thus, we measured the following five items of IMC: (1)
consistency through communication tools and channels, (2) visual
consistency of message, (3) linguistic consistency of message, (4)
brand image consistency, and (5) long-term consistency.
On the other hand, brand image, perceived quality, and brand
loyalty were measured using the scale of Kim et al. (2003) and
Kim and Kim (2005), retaining: (1) seven items to evaluate brand
image (i.e., being comfortable, high level of service, cleanliness,
being luxury, suitable place for high-class, feeling special by vis-
iting the hotel, differentiated image), (2) seven items to measure
perceived quality (i.e., making customers feel special and valued,
well-mannered staff, providing services at promised time, effective
customer complaints handling, active communication with cus-
tomers, knowledge and confidence of the staff, anticipated service
for special customer needs), and (3) four items to assess brand loy-
alty (i.e., intention to return, satisfaction, intention to recommend,
non-intention to change).
Finally, ICT perception was operationalised through four items
of the scale of Gil-Saura and Ruiz-Molina (2009), which was
adapted to the hotel context. Thus, we assessed the following ICT
aspects: (1) perceptions regarding whether the hotel invests in
ICT, (2) perception of latest trend technology, (3) perception of the
hotel’s technology as more advanced, compared to other hotels,
and (4) consideration of guest opinion for ICT improvement. We
provided some advanced technology solutions to the respondents
in order to facilitate the answer (i.e., LCD, touch screens, interactive
TV, ambient intelligence, etc.).
4.2. Data collection
We conducted the empirical research in high-quality (i.e., first
class, first class superior, luxury, and superior luxury) hotels located
in Rome, Italy. In 20 hotels we obtained the permission from hotel
managers to interview 20 guests in each hotel. A total of 400 poten-
tial respondents were approached, while 335 valid responses were
obtained, thus achieving a response rate of 83.75%. The respondents
stayed in nine first class, three first class superior, three luxury, and
five superior luxury hotels.
We collected the data through a structured questionnaire,
which consisted of closed questions measured by 5-point Lik-
ert type scales. The questionnaire was written in English, Italian,
151
and Spanish by experts fluent in Italian and English and native in
Spanish. Some adjustments were made to adapt each version of
the questionnaire to the respective culture, preserving coherency
throughout all three of them. In particular, to ensure item equiva-
lence, each language version of the survey was translated forward
and back to insure uniformity among the versions (Malhotra et al.,
1996). The translation of items from English to Italian and Span-
ish and the final wording of the Italian and Spanish instrument
were performed by faculty members of an Italian and Spanish uni-
versity, respectively, who are proficient in each language. Finally,
both versions were back-translated into English and examined by
university professors to confirm they have semantic equivalence
(Mallinckrodt and Wang, 2004). The questionnaire was mainly
administered through face-to-face interviews, while in some cases
it was self-administered.
Once the data were collected, in order to confirm the validity of
the proposed conceptual framework, a covariance structure anal-
ysis or the estimation of a structural equations model was carried
out, following the two-step procedure recommended by Anderson
and Gerbing (1988). In particular, we first performed a confirmatory
factor analysis, and second, a structural, theoretical or causal model
that allowed obtaining information about the posited hypotheses.
Last, a multigroup or multisample structural equation model was
estimated in order to test the moderating role of perceived ICT on
the relationships among IMC and brand equity dimensions. In order
to perform these analyses, EQS version 6.1 and SPSS version 19 were
used as statistical software.
5. Results
5.1. Profile of respondents
As presented in Table 4, the respondents consisted of 53.7%
female and 46.3% male. Two dominant age groups were 36–45
(32.8%) and 46–55 (23.6%) years old. With regard to level of
education, 49.8% of the respondents had higher education (i.e.,
university, college, or vocational school), 34.4% had secondary edu-
cation, while 13.4% had post-graduate education (i.e., master or
PhD). A great number of the respondents were employees (i.e.,
service/government employees, policy/army, professional techni-
cians, etc.) (41.5%), while 34.3% were businessmen, and 12.8% were
students. With regard to reasons to travel, 83.9% of the respondents
stated they travelled for vacations, while 10.7% travelled for busi-
ness. Reported frequency of hotel visit indicated that 83.3% of the
guests visited the hotel once a year or less, 10.1% visited it two to
four times a year, whereas 6.6% visited it more than four times a
year. Most of the respondents (73.2%) were from: Italy (32.8%), US
(21.2%), Spain (6.9%), France (6.6%), and Germany (5.7%).
5.2. Measurement model
As shown in Table 5, a confirmatory factor analysis was first
performed for testing the psychometric properties of the study vari-
ables. Furthermore, the reliability of scales was measured through
the composite reliability and the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for all
the constructs. In particular, all the estimated indices were above
the threshold of 0.7 for Cronbach’s alpha (Nunnally and Bernstein,
1994) and 0.6 for CR (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), which showed good
internal consistency of scales. In addition, we obtained acceptable
values for the extracted variances, being all the standardised fac-
tor loadings statistically significant for all the items. Moreover, as
all AVE values were greater than 0.5, we concluded that more than
50% of variance of a construct was due to its indicators (Fornell
and Larcker, 1981). All this allowed us to confirm the convergent
validity of the model.
152 M. Šerić et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156

Table 4 variances for perceived quality and brand loyalty were 21.5% and
Sample profile.
76.1%, respectively.
Guests Frequency % Regarding the relationships between IMC, brand image,
Gender perceived quality, and brand loyalty, we found support for the first
Male 155 46.3 six hypotheses (Table 7). In particular, positive and significant rela-
Female 180 53.7 tionships are corroborated between guests’ perceptions of IMC and
Age brand-equity dimensions, i.e., brand image ( IMC to Image = 0.387,
18–25 34 10.1
p < 0.005), perceived quality ( IMC to Quality = 0.464, p < 0.005), and
26–35 64 19.1
36–45 110 32.8 brand loyalty ( IMC to Loyalty = 0.110, p < 0.01), thus supporting
46–55 79 23.6 H1, H2, and H3. Positive and significant relationships are
56–65 36 10.7 also found between the three brand equity dimensions, more
+ 65 12 3.6
specifically between: (1) perceived quality and brand image
Education level
Primary education 8 2.4 ( Quality to Image = 0.567, p < 0.005), (2) perceived quality and brand
Secondary education 115 34.4 loyalty ( Quality to Loyalty = 0.629, p < 0.005), and (3) brand image and
Higher education (university, college, brand loyalty ( Image to Loyalty = 0.221, p < 0.005), providing evidence
or vocational school) 167 49.8 in favour of H4, H5, and H6. These results are consistent with previ-
Postgraduate education (master and PhD) 45 13.4
ous literature reporting that IMC exerts a positive impact on brand
Occupation
Employee 139 41.5 equity creation and that the inter-relationship exists between sin-
Businessman 115 34.3 gle brand equity components.
Student 43 12.8 In addition, significant indirect relationships between guests’
Housewife 10 3.0
perceptions of IMC and brand loyalty are observed. In particu-
Retired 28 8.4
Travel reason
lar, the relationships between these constructs are mediated by
Vacations 281 83.9 brand image (beta standardised coefficient: 0.436; p < 0.005) and
Business 36 10.7 perceived quality (beta standardised coefficient: 0.263; p < 0.005).
Others 18 5.4 The sequence IMC → Perceived quality → Brand image → Brand
Frequency of hotel visit
loyalty is also found to be significant (beta standardised coefficient:
≤once a year 279 83.3
2–4 times a year 34 10.1 0.126; p < 0.005). These findings allow us to support the importance
>4 times a year 22 6.6 of integrated marketing communications for brand equity as well
Nationality as for its final outcome, i.e. customer loyalty towards the brand in
Italian 110 32.8
the context of the hospitality industry.
United States 71 21.2
Spanish 23 6.9
Finally, a multisample analysis was performed to test the mod-
French 22 6.6 erating role of ICT, after dividing the total sample in two groups,
German 19 5.7 depending on customer perception of hotel ICT. In order to obtain
Norway 16 4.8 a similar number of hotels in these two groups, the median value
British 14 4.2
of the ICT perception scale was considered as a reference, since the
Australia 11 3.3
Holand 10 3.0 median is defined as the value having half of the observations less
Belgium 9 2.7 than and half exceeding it. The average value of the four items mea-
Brazil 6 1.8 suring ICT perceptions provides a median value of 3.00. Thus, low
Argentina 5 1.5
ICT hotels are those that have an average assessment about the level
Canada 5 1.5
New Zealand 5 1.5
of advancement of ICT below the median value (i.e., 3.00), whereas
Hong Kong 3 0.9 high ICT hotels are those showing an average ICT score above the
India 2 0.6 median (Table 8).
Israel 2 0.6 The results show that the relationships between IMC and
Uruguay 2 0.6
brand equity dimensions are stronger for hotels with higher ICT
perception, compared to those with lower levels of technology
implementation. In particular, while for low ICT hotels the stan-
In order to test the discriminant validity, we used Fornell dardised parameters for the relationships between IMC and brand
and Larcker’s (1981) criterion, since it is considered as the most image, perceived quality, and brand loyalty were 0.233, 0.203, and
stringent one (Farrell, 2010). This method requires a construct’s 0.111 (p < 0.005), respectively, they amounted 0.517, 0.545, and
extracted variance to be bigger than the squared correlation of this 0.208 (p < 0.005), respectively, for establishments with high levels
construct with another construct. As depicted in Table 6, all square of ICT.
roots of AVE were higher than the correlations between constructs. Nevertheless, differences between low and high ICT hotels were
Therefore, the discriminant validity was also confirmed. not significant (p < 0.05) and, therefore, hypotheses H7a, H7b, and
H7c are not supported.

5.3. Hypotheses testing

Once we verified the reliability and validity of the measure-
ment scales, we estimated the structural equation model for the
total sample. As presented in Table 7, the goodness of fit statis-
tics showed that the model reasonably fits the data. The overall
fit of the model appeared to be acceptable with chi-square (224),
CFI, IFI, Bentler-Bonett NNFI and RMSEA of 677.14, 0.928, 0.929,
0.919, and 0.078, respectively. Furthermore, the results of the mul-
tivariate test of the structural model indicated that as a whole the
model explains 67.5% of the variance in brand image. The explained
6. Discussion and implications
The findings of this study confirm positive and significant rela-
tionships between guest perceptions of IMC and customer-based
hotel brand equity, specifically between perceived unified com-
munications for consistent message and image and: (1) brand
image, (2) perceived quality, and (3) brand loyalty. These results
suggest that high level of hotel implementation of IMC, and its sub-
sequent guest perception can increase brand equity and provide
the hotel with competitive advantages. More specifically, from a
 M. Šerić et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156 153

Table 5
Confirmatory factor analysis results, reliability coefficients and average variance extracted.

Construct Item St. loading factor t Cronbach’s ␣ Composite Average variance

(st. error) reliability extracted

IMC Comm. tools and channels consistency 0.826 – 0.922 0.923 0.705
Visual consistency 0.824 18.003
Linguistic consistency 0.881 15.583
Brand image consistency 0.869 17.060
Long term consistency 0.796 15.806
Brand image Comfortable 0.760 – 0.934 0.937 0.681
High level of service 0.850 19.796
Cleanliness 0.713 14.032
Luxury 0.891 17.162
Suitable place for high-class 0.903 17.282
Feeling special 0.863 16.092
Differentiated image 0.778 14.595
Perceived quality Special and valued customer 0.875 – 0.955 0.957 0.759
Well-mannered staff 0.880 23.018
Services at promised time 0.884 23.012
Effective complaint handling 0.861 17.377
Active communication 0.835 21.161
Staff knowledge and confidence 0.892 24.142
Anticipated service for special needs 0.870 32.374
Brand loyalty Intention to return 0.879 – 0.940 0.943 0.806
Satisfaction 0.869 20.067
Intention to recommend 0.938 35.076
Non-intention to change 0.903 31.522
Advanced ICT Hotel investment in technology 0.804 – 0.871 0.876 0.642
perception The most advanced technology 0.895 21.148
More advanced technology than competitors 0.838 18.656
Customers’ opinion on technology decisions 0.646 14.285

Note: comm. = communication; chi-square Satorra-Bentler: 913.08; degrees of freedom: 351; CFI: 0.923; IFI: 0.923; Bentler-Bonett NNFI: 0.913; RMSEA: 0.076.

Table 6
Means, standard deviations, square root of AVE and correlations between constructs.

Construct Mean St. dev. Correlations

F1 F2 F3 F4

F1. IMC 3.906 0.774 0.839

F2. Brand mage 3.372 1.268 0.650 0.825
F3. Perceived quality 4.041 1.073 0.464 0.746 0.871
F4. Brand loyalty 3.860 1.206 0.546 0.762 0.845 0.897

Note: diagonal values in bold are square root of AVE and others (off-diagonal) are correlations between variables.

Table 7
Structural equations model results: total sample.

Relationship Stand. parameter Stand. error t Hypothesis

Direct effects IMC → Brand image 0.387 0.053 8.073b H1 supported

IMC → Perceived quality 0.464 0.083 8.869b H2 supported
IMC → Brand loyalty 0.110 0.069 2.576a H3 supported
Perceived quality → Brand image 0.567 0.039 10.209 b
H4 supported
Perceived quality → Brand loyalty 0.629 0.069 9.242b
H5 supported
Brand image → Brand loyalty 0.221 0.106 3.074b H6 supported
Indirect effects IMC → Brand image → Brand loyalty 0.436 0.089 7.881b
IMC → Perceived quality → Brand loyalty 0.263 0.046 6.327b
IMC → Perceived quality → Brand image → Brand loyalty 0.126 0.041 3.134b
Chi-square Satorra-Bentler: 677.14; degrees of freedom: 224; CFI: 0.928; IFI: 0.929; Bentler-Bonett NNFI: 0.919; RMSEA: 0.078

Note: a* p < 0.01, b** p < 0.005.

Table 8
Structural equations model results: multisample analysis.

Relationship Low ICT (N = 201) High ICT (N = 134) Chi2 diff. p-value Hypothesis

St. parameter p-value St. parameter p-value

IMC → Brand image 0.233 0.000 0.517 0.000 0.001 0.982 H7a not supported
IMC → Perceived quality 0.203 0.000 0.545 0.000 0.159 0.690 H7b not supported
IMC → Brand loyalty 0.111 0.003 0.208 0.001 0.292 0.589 H7c not supported
Chi-square Satorra-Bentler: 985.24; degrees of freedom: 451; CFI: 0.878; IFI: 0.880; Bentler-Bonett NNFI: 0.863; RMSEA: 0.060
154 M. Šerić et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156
customer-based brand equity perspective, our study shows that
guests’ IMC perception can form and maintain strong and
favourable associations to the brand image and enhance hotel
perceived quality. The implication for managers is that they need to
understand how their marketing communication activities affect
consumer perceptions. In addition, they need to address the IMC
implementation to build and maintain hotel brand equity. As brand
equity implies satisfied and loyal customers, the final purpose of
implementing IMC in businesses should be to create satisfied and
loyal customers. Therefore, we encourage hotel managers to focus
their attention on improving their efficiency and service quality
through the implementation of IMC programmes in general and
the transmission of unified and consistent messages in particular.
We believe that IMC will certainly lead a new world in the hotel
sector, which is why managers should conceive it as an important
factor of the creation of their business strategy.
Moreover, the results confirm that the three dimensions of
customer-based brand equity examined here are interrelated for
high-quality hotel companies. Thus, perceived quality is found to
influence both brand image and brand loyalty. In particular, the
results of our study show that the impact of perceived quality on
brand image is stronger than any other effect, which is in line
with results obtained by Sun and Ghiselli (2010) who concluded
that perceived quality is the strongest predictor of brand equity in
the hotel industry. This is another important implication for hotel
managers, who consistently need to provide high-quality services
to their guests. This could be accomplished by making customers
feel special and valued, by providing services at promised times,
and by anticipating services for customer special needs, ensuring
thus personalised rather than standardised service. Moreover, the
hotel staff should actively communicate with guests, manage to
handle their complaints effectively, and show confidence and good-
manners, as these are found to be important factors of superior
quality performance that will retain customers and encourage their
loyalty.
This study also demonstrates that brand image bears a strong
impact on the development of brand loyalty. The implication is that
hotel companies should do their best in creating a favourable brand
image, ensuring comfort, cleanliness, and high-level of service.
Specifically, hotels managers should be able to create a differen-
tiated image, making sure that their guests feel special during their
stay in the hotel. By doing so, hotels will obtain satisfied customers,
who will be willing to return and make positive recommendations
about the hotel.
Furthermore, indirect effects of IMC on brand loyalty are found
to be significant. The relationships between these constructs, medi-
ated by brand image and perceived quality, provide evidence about
the importance of integrated marketing communications for any
for-profit companies, since its ultimate goal is customer loyalty.
Finally, when studying the moderating role of advanced tech-
nology, hotels perceived by guests as high technology hotels show
stronger links between IMC and brand equity dimensions, i.e.
brand image, perceived quality, and brand loyalty, compared to
low technology hotels. Notwithstanding, we found no significant
differences in the hypothesised relationships among hotels with
low ICT perception and those with high ICT perception. This finding
might be explained by the higher importance of personal contact
and communications with the hotel staff in brand equity creation
for upscale hotel guests. Another possible explanation for this result
is the outside-in approach adopted in this work, meaning that
ICT perception was evaluated from the customer rather than from
the manager perspective. As we have observed in the conceptual
framework, there is a tendency in the hospitality literature to con-
sider ICT from the hotel point of view (e.g., Lee et al., 2003; Sigala,
2003; Ham et al., 2005; Li et al., 2012). Thus, according to hotel man-
agers or employees opinions, ICT adoption implies a great number
of benefits affecting consumer perception and behaviour. How-
ever, it may be that they centre on what a company is doing rather
than what consumers are actually getting. Therefore, it seems pos-
sible that our findings are also due to this discrepancy between
hotel believes and guest perceptions. Thus, although hotel man-
agers might think that a greater ICT adoption will result in a positive
brand image, perceived quality, and customer loyalty, when hotel
guests’ opinions are considered it does not necessarily need to be
the same way. In this sense, hotel technology advancements do
not seem to contribute positively to the hotel guest experience.
Thereby, our study confirms the fact that doubts about efficiency
of technology solutions still seem to persist. This is in line with
so called “IT paradox literature”, which fails to show a correlation
between ICT investment and firm performance (Lee and Connolly,
2010).
6.1. Conclusion, limitations, and future research possibilities
This paper makes several important contributions. First, the role
of IMC in brand equity building is studied in the hospitality indus-
try. Second, three significant components of customer-based hotel
brand equity are identified (i.e., brand image, perceived quality, and
brand loyalty), and the inter-relationship among these dimensions
is examined. Third, a moderating role of advanced ICT on the rela-
tionships between IMC and brand equity dimensions is analysed.
Fourth, the model is tested from the guest perceptive, confirming
thus the importance of consumer opinions and perceptions as an
integral part of business and marketing strategies. Finally, a contri-
bution is made to the hospitality industry, specifically to the Italian
hotel context.
However, some limitations of this study should be considered
as opportunities for the future research. First, the results of this
paper concern only the Italian high-quality hotel segment, which
imposes caution for their generalisation. Therefore, we suggest
future research to approach upscale hotels in other countries. To
increase generalisation of the findings, mid priced or budget hotel
could also be included in the study. In addition, the role of IMC
could be considered in other service companies. Moreover, some
other variables could be included in the model. We did not ana-
lyse brand awareness, as previous research showed that it is not a
significant dimension of hotel brand equity. However, future stud-
ies could consider this variable as one of brand equity dimensions.
In addition, satisfaction could be examined separately, and not as
an integral factor of brand loyalty, as customer satisfaction and
brand loyalty are two distinctive constructs. Finally, in this study
we used three different versions of the questionnaire (English, Ital-
ian, and Spanish) to collect data. To detect any cultural biases that
might affect the linguistic equivalence of different questionnaire
formats, we suggest that future research considers pretesting the
questionnaire among different bilingual subjects.
References
Aaker, D.A., 1991. Managing Brand Equity. Free Press, New York.
Aaker, D.A., 1996. Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California
Management Review 38 (3), 102–120.
Anantachart, S., 2004. Integrated marketing communications and market planning:
their implications to brand equity building. Journal of Promotion Management
11 (1), 101–125.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modelling in practice: a
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3),
411–423.
Angelopulo, G.C., Barker, R., 2005. Integrated Web-based marketing communication:
an institutional tracking study. Communicatio 31 (1), 107–121.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1), 74–94.
Baidya, M., Maity, B., 2010. Effectiveness of integrated marketing communications:
empirical analysis of two brands in India. Journal of Indian Business Research 2
(1), 23–31.
 M. Šerić et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156
Bailey, R., Ball, S., 2006. An exploration of the meanings of hotel brand equity. The
Service Industries Journal 26 (1), 15–38.
Barker, R., Angelopulo, G.C., 2004. The integrated Web-based marketing communi-
cation model: a South African case-study. International Journal of Technology,
Policy and Management 4 (1), 53–62.
Beldona, S., Cobanoglu, C., 2007. Importance-performance analysis of guest tech-
nologies in the lodging industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly 48 (3), 299–312.
Christensen, L.T., Firat, A.F., Cornelissen, J., 2009. New tensions and challenges in
integrated communications. Corporate Communications: An International Jour-
nal 14 (2), 207–219.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A., Donthu, N., 1995. Brand equity, brand preference
and purchase intent. Journal of Advertising 24 (3), 25–40.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Navarro, A., Sicilia, M., 2012. Revitalising brands through
communication messages: the role of brand familiarity. European Journal of
Marketing 46 (1), 31–51.
Denizci, B., Tasci, A.D.A., 2010. Modeling the commonly-assumed relationship
between human capital and brand equity in tourism. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management 19 (6), 610–628.
Dewhirst, T., Davis, B., 2005. Brand strategy and integrated marketing communi-
cations (IMC). a case study of player’s cigarette brand marketing. Journal of
Advertising 34 (4), 81–92.
Dinnie, K., Melewar, T.C., Seidenfuss, K.U., Musa, G., 2010. Nation branding and
integrated marketing communications: an ASEAN perspective. International
Marketing Review 27 (4), 388–403.
Dioko, L., So, S.I.A., 2012. Branding destinations versus branding hotels in a gaming
destination - examining the nature and significance of co-branding effects in
the case study of Macao. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31
(2), 554–563.
Duncan, T.R., Moriarty, S.E., 1997. Driving brand value. Using integrated marketing
to manage profitable stakeholder relationships. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Edmiston-Strasser, D.M., 2009. An examination of integrated marketing communi-
cation in U.S. public institutions of higher education. Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education 19 (2), 142–165.
Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Barnard, N., Kennedy, R., Bloom, H., 2002. Brand advertising as
creative publicity. Journal of Advertising Research 42 (4), 7–18.
Elliott, R., Boshoff, C., 2008. The influence of business orientations in small tourism
businesses on the success of integrated marketing communication. Manage-
ment Dynamics 17 (4), 32–46.
Farrell, A.M., 2010. Insufficient discriminant validity: a comment on Bove, Pervan,
Beatty and Shiu (2009). Journal of Business Research 63 (3), 324–327.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18
(1), 39–50.
Gil-Saura, I., Ruiz-Molina, M.E., 2009. Customer segmentation based on commitment
and ICT use. Industrial Management & Data Systems 109 (2), 206–223.
Gilbert, D., Powell-Perry, J., 2001. Exploring developments in Web based relation-
ship marketing within the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management 9 (3), 141–159.
Gould, S.J., 2004. IMC as theory and as a poststructural set of practices and discourses:
a continuously evolving paradigm shift. Journal of Advertising Research 44 (1),
66–70.
Gurău, C., 2008. Integrated online marketing communication: implementation and
management. Journal of Communication Management 12 (2), 169–184.
Ham, S., Kim, W.G., Jeong, S., 2005. Effect of information technology on perfor-
mance in upscale hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 24
(2), 281–294.
Hennessey, S.M., Yun, D., MacDonald, R., MacEachern, M., 2010. The effects of adver-
tising awareness and media form on travel intentions. Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management 19 (3), 217–243.
Hsu, C.H.C., Oh, H., Assaf, A.G., 2012a. A customer-based brand equity model for
upscale hotels. Journal of Travel Research 51 (1), 81–93.
Hsu, T.H., Hung, L.C., Tang, J.W., 2012b. An analytical model for building brand equity
in hospitality firms. Annals for Operations Research 195 (1), 355–378.
Hudson, S., 2008. Marketing for tourism and hospitality. a global perspective, 2nd
ed. Sage, London.
Hyun, S.S., Kim, W., 2011. Dimensions of brand equity in the chain restaurant indus-
try. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52 (4), 429–437.
Imrie, R., Fyall, A., 2000. Customer retention and loyalty in the independent mid-
market hotel sector. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 7 (3),
39–54.
Israeli, A.A., Adler, N., Mehrez, A., Sundali, J.A., 2000. Investigating the use of advertis-
ing for communicating a hotel’s strategic assets. Journal of Hospitality Marketing
& Management 7 (3), 23–37.
Jensen, M.B., Jepsen, A.L., 2008. Online marketing communications: need for a new
typology for IMC? Journal of Website Promotion 2 (1), 19–35.
Kandampully, J., Hu, H.H., 2007. Do hoteliers need to manage image to retain loyal
customers? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19
(6), 435–443.
Kandampully, J., Suhartanto, D., 2000. Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: the
role of customer satisfaction and image. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 12 (6), 346–351.
Kandampully, J., Suhartanto, D., 2003. The role of customer satisfaction and image in
gaining customer loyalty in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing
& Management 10 (1/2), 3–25.
155
Kayaman, R., Arasli, H., 2007. Customer based brand equity: evidence from the hotel
industry. Managing Service Quality 17 (1), 92–109.
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: building, measuring, and managing
brand equity, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Keller, K.L., 2009. Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications
environment. Journal of Marketing Communications 15 (2/3), 139–155.
Kerr, G., Drennan, J., 2010. Same but different – perceptions of integrated market-
ing communications among marketing communication partners in Australia.
Journal of Promotion Management 16 (1), 6–24.
Kim, I., Han, D., Schultz, D.E., 2004. Understanding the diffusion of integrated mar-
keting communication. Journal of Advertising Research 44 (1), 31–45.
Kim, W.G., Jin-Sun, B., Kim, H.J., 2008. Multidimensional customer-based brand
equity and its consequences in midpriced hotels. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research 32 (2), 235–254.
Kim, W.G., Kim, H.B., 2004. Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity:
investigating the relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 45 (2), 115–131.
Kim, H.B., Kim, W.G., 2005. The relationship between brand equity and firms’
performance in luxury hotels and restaurants. Tourism Management 26 (4),
549–560.
Kim, H.B., Kim, W.G., An, J.A., 2003. The effect of customer-based brand equity
on firms’ financial performance. Journal of Customer Marketing 20 (4),
335–351.
Kimpakorn, N., Tocquer, G., 2010. Service brand equity and employee brand com-
mitment. Journal of Services Marketing 24 (5), 378–388.
Kitchen, P.J., Brignell, J., Li, T., Jones, G.S., 2004. The emergence of IMC: a theoretical
perspective. Journal of Advertising Research 44 (1), 19–30.
Kitchen, P.J., Schultz, D.E., 2009. IMC: New horizon/false dawn for a marketplace in
turmoil? Journal of Marketing Communications 15 (2/3), 197–204.
Kliatchko, J., 2005. Towards a new definition of integrated marketing communica-
tions (IMC). International Journal of Advertising 24 (1), 7–34.
Kliatchko, J., 2009. IMC 20 years after: a second look at IMC definitions. International
Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications 1 (2), 7–12.
Kulluvaara, C., Tornberg, J., 2003. Integrated Marketing Communication and
Tourism. A case Study of Icehotel (Bachelor’s Thesis). Retrieved from
http://epubl.ltu.se/1404-5508/2003/138/LTU-SHU-EX-03138-SE.pdf.
Law, R., Jogaratnam, G., 2005. A study of hotel information technology applica-
tions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 17 (2),
170–180.
Lee, D.H., Park, C.W., 2007. Conceptualization and measurement of multidimension-
ality of integrated marketing communications. Journal of Advertising Research
47 (3), 222–236.
Lee, J.W., Kim, H.B., 2009. Impacts of perception to alliance companies on hotel’s
brand equity according to the types of vertical integration. International Journal
of Tourism Sciences 9 (2), 1–21.
Lee, S., Connolly, D.J., 2010. The impact of IT news on hospitality firm value using
cumulative abnormal returns (CARs). International Journal of Hospitality Man-
agement 29 (3), 354–362.
Lee, S.C., Barker, S., Kandampully, J., 2003. Technology, service quality, and customer
loyalty in hotels: Australian managerial perspectives. Managing Service Quality
13 (5), 423–432.
Li, L., Lee, H.A., Law, R., 2012. Technology-mediated management learning in hos-
pitality organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2),
451–457.
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 Adver-
tising 34 (4), 69–80.
Malhotra, N.K., Agarwal, J., Peterson, M., 1996. Methodological issues in cross-
cultural marketing research: a state-of-the-art review. International Marketing
Review 13 (5), 7–43.
Malik, M.E., Naeem, B., 2011. Interrelationship between customer based brand
equity constructs: empirical evidence from hotel industry of Pakistan.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business 3 (4),
795–804.
Mallinckrodt, B., Wang, C.C., 2004. Quantitative methods for verifying semantic
equivalence of translated research instruments: a Chinese version of the expe-
riences in close relationships scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology 51 (3),
368–379.
McGrath, J.M., 2005. A pilot study testing aspects of the integrated market-
ing communications concept. Journal of Marketing Communications 11 (3),
191–214.
Mulhern, F., 2009. Integrated marketing communications: From media channels to
digital connectivity. Journal of Marketing Communications 15 (2/3), 85–101.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., Whyatt, G., 2011. Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer
satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research 38 (3), 1009–1030.
Nel, J.D.W., North, E.J., Mybur, T., Hern, L., 2009. A comparative study of customer-
based brand equity across selected South African hotels. International Retail and
Marketing Review 5 (1), 15–24.
Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., 1994. Psychometric theory, 3rd ed. McGraw Hill, New
York.
Olsen, M.D., West, J., Tse, E., 1998. Strategic management in the hospitality industry,
2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
156 M. Šerić et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156
Peltier, J., Schibrowsky, J., Schultz, D.E., 2003. Interactive integrated marketing
communication: combining the power of IMC, the new media and database
marketing. International Journal of Advertising 22 (1), 93–115.
Prasad, K., Dev, C.S., 2000. Managing hotel brand equity: a customer-centric frame-
work for assessing performance. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly 41 (3), 22–31.
Reid, M., 2002. Building strong brands through the management of integrated mar-
keting communications. International Journal of Wine Marketing 14 (3), 37–52.
Reid, M., 2005. Performance auditing of integrated marketing communications (IMC)
actions and outcomes. Journal of Advertising 34 (4), 41–54.
Ruiz-Molina, M.E., Gil-Saura, I., Moliner-Velázquez, B., 2011. Does technology make
a difference? Evidence from Spanish hotels. Service Business 5 (1), 1–12.
Sahadev, S., Islam, N., 2005. Why hotels adopt ICTs: a study on the ICT adoption
propensity of hotels in Thailand. International Journal of Contemporary Hospi-
tality Management 17 (5), 391–401.
Schultz, D.E., 1993. Integration helps you plan communications from outside-in.
Marketing News 27 (6), 12.
Schultz, D.E., 1999. Integrated marketing communications and how it relates to
traditional media advertising. In: Jones, J.P. (Ed.), The Advertising Business:
Operations, Creativity, Media Planning, Integrated Communications. Sage, Lon-
don, pp. 325–338.
Shultz, D.E., 1994. Trying to determine ROI for IMC (Part 1). Marketing News 28 (1),
18.
Sigala, M., 2003. The information and communication technologies productivity
impact on the UK hotel sector. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 23 (10), 1224–1245.
Sigala, M., 2012. Web 2.0 and customer involvement in new service development: A
framework, cases and implications in tourism. In: Sigala, N., Christou, E., Gretzel,
U. (Eds.), Web 2.0 in Travel, Tourism and Hospitality: Theory, Practice and Cases.
Ashgate Publishing Limited, London, pp. 25–38.
Siguaw, J.A., Enz, C.A., Namasivayam, K., 2000. Adoption of information technology
in U.S. hotels: strategically driven objectives. Journal of Travel Research 39 (2),
192–201.
Skinner, H., 2005. Wish you were here? Some problems associated with integrating
marketing communications when promoting place brands. Place Branding 1 (3),
299–315.
So, K.K.G., King, C., 2010. When experience matters: building and measuring hotel
brand equity. The customers’ perspective. International Journal of Contempo-
rary Hospitality Management 22 (5), 589–608.
Sun, L.B., Ghiselli, R., 2010. Developing an empirical model of hotel brand equity
based on Aaker’s perspective. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and
Tourism 11 (3), 147–161.
Šerić, M., Gil-Saura, I., 2011. Integrated marketing communications and informa-
tion and communication technology in the hotel sector: an analysis of their use
and development in Dalmatian first-class and luxury hotels. Journal of Retail &
Leisure Property 9 (5), 401–414.
Šerić, M., Gil-Saura, I., 2012a. 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., 2012b. Integrated marketing communications in high-quality
hotels of Central and Southern Dalmatia: A study from the perspective of man-
agers and guests. Tržište-Market 24 (1), 67–83.
Tasci, A.D.A., Denizci-Guillet, B., 2011. It affects, it affects not: a quasi-experiment on
the transfer effect of co-branding on consumer-based brand equity of hospitality
products. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (4), 774–782.
Verma, R., Stock, D., McCarthy, L., 2012. Customer preferences for online, social
media, and mobile innovations in the hospitality industry. Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly 53 (3), 183–186.
Wang, Y.J., Wu, C., Yuan, J., 2009. The role of integrated marketing communica-
tions (IMC) on heritage destination visitations. Journal of Quality Assurance in
Hospitality & Tourism 10 (3), 218–231.
Xu, J.B., Chan, A., 2010. A conceptual framework of hotel experience and customer-
based brand equity. Some research questions and implications. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22 (2), 174–193.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-
based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research 52 (1), 1–14.