Place Branding and Public Diplomacy

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-019-00125-7

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Exploring the analytics for linking consumer‑based brand equity

(CBBE) and financial‑based brand equity (FBBE) of destination or place
brands
Asli D. A. Tasci1

Revised: 20 July 2018

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Abstract
Brand equity, both with a financial and perceptual focus, has preoccupied researchers for about four decades. Since financial
equity is assumed to depend on perceptual equity, more attention has recently been diverted to perceptual equity indicators.
Despite the increasing focus on consumer-based brand equity (CBBE), its assumed relationship with the financial-based
brand equity (FBBE) has not been substantiated with empirical evidence. This relationship is especially critical for place
management authorities such as municipalities, councils, and destination marketing organizations, whose functions are
under scrutiny for justifying their budgets that are usually supported with public taxes. The current study investigates this
relationship by measuring and ranking the CBBE and FBBE of destination brands. Analysis included consumer data on
CBBE components of familiarity, image, quality, consumer value, brand value, quality, and loyalty besides public data on
financial equity for destinations, including the number of visitors, market share, tourist spending, tourism taxes, and tourism
jobs. CBBE rankings and FBBE rankings did not match for any destination included in the study. Keeping in mind the lack
of time series data in both CBBE and FBBE indicators, future research suggestions are provided for progress in understand-
ing the link between CBBE and FBBE.

Keywords Brand equity · Destination brand · Place brand · CBBE · FBBE

Introduction Chernatony 2010; Keller 1993; Lassar et al. 1995). Hence-

Different perspectives on brand equity have resulted in dif-
ferent definitions and measures for about four decades. Start-
ing in the late 80s and early 90s, brand equity was measured
using the market performance of a brand against its competi-
tors in certain performance metrics, such as prices, sales,
profits, and market share (e.g., Blattberg and Wisniewski
1989; Farquhar 1989; Kamakura and Russell 1993; Stobart
1989; Simon and Sullivan 1993; Swait et al. 1993; Wentz
1989; Yovovich 1988). As researchers realized the critical
role of perceptual metrics in achieving those financial goals,
the focus shifted to perceptual indicators in the early 90 s
(e.g., Aaker 1996; Baalbaki 2012; Christodoulides and de
* Asli D. A. Tasci
Asli.Tasci@ucf.edu
1 ations related to a brand, as brand knowledge or brand equity
Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University
of Central Florida, 9907 Universal Boulevard, Orlando,
FL 32819, USA
forth, perception-based brand equity, especially from con-
sumers’ and customers’ perspectives, has received increasing
attention.
Conceptualization and operationalization of consumer/
customer-based brand equity (CBBE) have started by the
initial works of Aaker (1991, 1996) and Keller (1993), who
explained CBBE as a conglomerate concept that includes
consumers’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions
to a brand. Initially, Aaker (1991) conceived of CBBE as
including consumer awareness, associations, quality, and
loyalty, which he operationalized later in his Brand Equity
Ten Measures (1996). Although these measures also include
some firm performance indicators, including market share
prices and distribution indices, researchers have excluded
those firm behavior variables and focused on consumer
behavior variables. Keller (1993) also conceived of several
consumer-behavior variables, namely awareness and associ-
indicators. Most published brand equity research has focused
on these consumer behavior measures since they were also

Vol.:(0123456789)

considered the main thrust behind a firm’s financial equity
and success (Aaker 1996; Baalbaki 2012; Christodoulides
and de Chernatony 2010; Lassar et al. 1995). Brand equity
as a brand’s success is also well accepted in place and des-
tination branding research (Anholt 2007; Jacobsen 2012;
Papadopoulos and Heslop 2002; Tasci and Denizci 2009;
Zavattaro et al. 2015; Zenker and Martin 2011; Vuignier
2016). Despite the increasing amount of CBBE research in
many different product contexts, including destination and
place brands, the assumed connection between perceptual
indicators and financial indicators was not empirically sub-
stantiated with repeated and robust findings for place or
destination brands by including both perception-based and
financial-based measures together in the same study.
Identifying the link between CBBE and FBBE is criti-
cal for all brands due to the expected return on investment
for marketing of brands; in other words, marketing-related
expenses are expected to be paid off by marketing outputs
(Lehmann 2004; Madden et al. 2006; Sheth and Sisodia
1995a, b), which are typically intangible concepts including
the CBBE components of image, quality, value, and loyalty.
The tangible outputs in relation to these intangible market-
ing outputs, or CBBE components, were also discussed and
measured for destination and place brands (e.g., Jorgensen
2015; Lucarelli 2012; Tasci and Denizci 2009; Zavattaro
et al. 2015; Zenker and Martin 2011; Zenker et al. 2013),
but this link has not been empirically substantiated with
repeated and robust findings in the published literature.
The relationship between tangible and intangible outputs,
or between CBBE and FBBE, is critical for place manage-
ment authorities such as city municipalities, state councils,
and city, state or country-level DMOs due to their funds,
often subsidized by public taxes, being channeled for mar-
keting their places or destinations. In 2013, Destination Mar-
keting Association International’s study on 218 U.S. and
Canadian DMOs revealed that the average DMO budget is
a little over $3 million, $2.4 million coming from taxes on
tourism-related businesses; the bulk of this budget is typi-
cally spent for sales and marketing by DMOs (Bush 2014).
When public funds are channeled for marketing, relevant
stakeholders wish to see a return on investment in increased
number of visitors and, better yet, increased tourism rev-
enues. Hence, DMOs in the U.S. have been under increasing
scrutiny to prove that their marketing activities deliver tangi-
ble outcomes. DMOs are called to provide their constituents
“a strategy that holds them accountable to achieving actual
measurable goals” (Peterson 2016). With this increasing
scrutiny, major DMOs in the U.S. have even faced the risk of
losing their public funds recently. Both Brand USA, a pub-
lic–private partnership corporation to market the USA as a
tourism destination and Visit Florida, another public–private
partnership corporation to market Florida, have battled for
retaining their public funds in recent years (Peltier 2017a, b).
A. D. A. Tasci
Demonstrating a link between intangible marketing out-
comes (or CBBE) and tangible outcomes (or FBBE) would
be helpful for DMOs and other place management authori-
ties in retaining their funds. Hence, the current study inves-
tigates if there is a relationship between perception-based
indicators (image, quality, consumer value, brand value,
and loyalty) and financial indicators (the number of visitors,
tourism revenues, tourism taxes, and tourism jobs) of brand
equity for some of the most popular tourist destinations in
the USA. More specifically, the objective of the research is
to investigate if destination rankings on CBBE metrics are
in line with rankings on FBBE metrics. The results will help
improving the productivity of marketing activities geared
toward CBBE indicators in relation to their relationship with
FBBE indicators.
Literature review
In the 80 s, brand equity was studied with financial perspec-
tives by strictly focusing on financial indicators. Initial dis-
cussions on the financial metrics started in the late 80 s and
measurable metrics were crystalized by the emergence of
CBBE in the early 90 s. Researchers are in consensus that a
strong brand has a long-term competitive advantage over its
unbranded competitors in performance indicators, including
market shares, price premiums (actual prices), present and
future revenues, cash flows, price elasticities, shareholder
values, revenues, and profits (Blackett 1989; Blattberg and
Wisniewski 1989; Christodoulides and de Chernatony 2010;
Cobb-Walgren et al. 1995; Doyle 2001; Dyson et al. 1996;
Keller and Lehmann 2003; Murphy 1989; Simon and Sul-
livan 1993; Stobart 1989; Swait et al. 1993; Vazquez et al.
2002; Yovovich 1988). Place branding and destination
branding literature researchers are also in consensus about
strong destination or place brands to have better performance
(e.g., Jorgensen 2015; Lucarelli 2012; Tasci and Denizci
2009; Zavattaro et al. 2015; Zenker and Martin 2011; Zenker
et al. 2013). However, there seems a lack of consensus in
terms of both the CBBE and FBBE metrics used to measure
the success of brands, including place or destination brands.
FBBE indicators/metrics proposed for conventional
brands
Despite the consensus about strong brands having strong
FBBE, the metrics, approaches and methods of defining
FBBE of brands varied among researchers. Guided by vary-
ing definitions, different indicators of financial equity have
been proposed and tested. Some definitions and measures
were clear and easy to replicate, while others were not.
Simon and Sullivan’s (1993) definition of financial brand
equity is very clear in terms of which metric they focus
Exploring the analytics for linking consumer‑based brand equity (CBBE) and financial‑based…
on for brand equity: “…the incremental cash flows which
accrue to branded products over and above the cash flows
which would result from the sale of unbranded products”
(p. 29). Others are less obvious; for example, Swait et al.
(1993) defined brand equity as: “…the implicit value to the
individual consumer of the brand in a market in which some
degree of differentiation exists vis-a-vis its implicit value in
a market characterized by no brand differentiation” (1993, p.
23). Barwise et al. (1990) proposed that a brand’s additional
revenue or profit comes from its differential price compared
to another unbranded product and can be calculated as an
outcome of its consumers’ differential response to its mar-
keting mix elements. Simon and Sullivan (1993) developed
a measure of financial-based brand equity (FBBE) by esti-
mating the current market value from firm’s securities as
“…an unbiased estimate of the future cash flows that are
attributable to all of the firm’s assets” (p. 29). They applied
this concept on several different product brands in order to
display the impact of marketing decisions on brand equity
(or value, as they dubbed it).
Price is one of the most used FBBE metrics. Kamakura
and Russell (1993) used actual purchase behavior from
supermarket scanner data on laundry detergents and esti-
mated financial brand equity (dubbed as value) “…after
accounting for differences in net price and brand salience
due to short term advertising exposures” (p. 10). Meanwhile,
Swait et al. (1993) developed a more subjective financial
measure through “…designed choice experiments that
account for brand name, product attributes, brand image
and consumer heterogeneity effects” to quantify a brand
equity metric, namely the Equalization Price (p. 23). In
addition, Ailawadi et al. (2003) proposed and validated a
measure of revenue premium as an outcome of CBBE. They
multiplied the actual price of the brand by the total sales
(price * volume), which they expected to be higher than
those of unbranded compatibles due to the expected price
premium of branded products (p. 3).
Price premium, namely the price of a branded product as
opposed to unbranded competitors, was measured in sev-
eral different ways, which resulted in conceptual confusion
among researchers studying brand equity. Some research-
ers measured it as an objective FBBE metric. For example,
Crimmins suggested a measure for calculating the price
premium of a brand “as the ratio of the brand’s price to its
competitor’s price when the two brands are equally desirable
to consumers, minus one” (2000, p. 144). Nonetheless, other
researchers measured price premium subjectively through a
consumer’s preference or willingness to pay. Conjoint anal-
ysis is a common method used to estimate multi-attribute
utility models where the contribution of different product
attributes or their bundles at certain price levels are cal-
culated in relation to respondents’ intention or willingness
to buy or use (e.g., Goldberg et al. 1984). Johansson and
Nebenzahl (1986) suggested a subjective method of “dollar
preference,” in which respondents can state if they are will-
ing to pay more or less in specific amounts for a brand. Simi-
larly, Kirmani and Zeithaml (1993) defined price premium
as an increment on price that consumers are willing to pay
for a particular brand as opposed to similar competitors. Ba
and Pavlou (2002) defined “price premium as the monetary
amount above the average price received by multiple sell-
ers for a certain matching product” (pp. 247–248), and they
operationalized it by a subjective open-ended question ask-
ing for the highest price that respondents are willing to pay:
“If you want to bid on this product available from the above
seller, what is the maximum bid you are willing to submit to
win this auction?” (p. 252). The same definition and question
were also used by Pavlou and Dimoka (2006) and Gregg
and Walczak (2010). Similarly Sethuraman and Cole (1999)
defined price premium as the maximum price consumers
will pay for a national brand over a store brand, expressed as
the proportionate price differential between a national brand
and a store brand” (p. 340) and also measured it as consum-
ers’ willingness to pay higher. More specifically, they set the
price of the national brand as 100, and asked “respondents
to indicate on a scale ranging from 0 to 200 (with intervals
of 10), the price they will pay for store brands” resulting in
Premium to be 100 minus the respondent’s price for the store
brand (p. 344). Inclusion of “willingness to pay” to “price
premium” shifted the role of price premium from FBBE
to CBBE since it became muddled with consumer attitude
rather than being an objective metric. Hence, Aaker (1996)
included willingness to pay price premium as a dimension
of loyalty, which were also applied by others (e.g., Nete-
meyer et al. 2004; Krishnan and Hartline 2001). Krishnan
and Hartline (2001), for example, asked respondents how
much more they would be willing to pay for a strong brand
as opposed to a weak brand.
Some of these FBBE metrics are easy to calculate with
real numbers rather than subjective consumer judgments,
as in CBBE metrics. However, their validity as indicators of
brand equity has been questioned due to several limitations.
One shortcoming is the lack of information on compatible
unbranded products (Christodoulides and de Chernatony
2010). Also, the effectiveness of some indicators such as
price premium has been questioned when the brand strategy
is increasing market share rather than maximizing profits
(Christodoulides and de Chernatony 2010). Besides, FBBE
metrics are considered rather static; they may be useful for
accounting purposes, but have limited managerial implica-
tions for market drivers of the differences in prices (Chris-
todoulides and de Chernatony 2010; de Mortanges and Van
Riel 2003). Furthermore, financial indicators are deemed to
be focused on the short-term success rather than the long-
term drivers of competitive edge (Aaker 1996; Simon and
Sullivan 1993). These variations and disadvantages of FBBE

indicators used by different researchers reduced the likeli-
hood of replication for establishing a standardized approach
to defining the FBBE of brands, including destinations and
places.
Consumer‑based brand equity (CBBE) indicators/
metrics for conventional brands
While FBBE metrics were being discussed and tested, the
focus has shifted to CBBE in the early 90 s as perceptual
metrics were recognized as the main driver of financial met-
rics. The premises of perception-based brand equity were
mostly outlined by Aaker (1991, 1992, 1996) and Keller
(1993, 2003). Keller (1993) specified his CBBE framework
as: “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer
response to the marketing of the brand” (p. 2). This CBBE
framework concerned brand equity as an overall brand
knowledge comprising awareness and image/associations;
associations referring to types (attributes, benefits, and
attitudes), strength, favorability, and uniqueness of brand
associations. Keller (2016) attributed CBBE measures more
strategic since they create value by centering around con-
sumer behavior theory, which then can be assessed using
FBBE models that seek to identify the financial impact of
marketing efforts and spending for creating strong brands
with loyal customers.
On the other hand, Aaker (1991) defined brand equity
as “a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand,
its name and symbol that add to or subtract from the value
provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to that
firms’ customers” (p. 15). In his Brand Equity Ten Meas-
ures, Aaker (1996) operationalized his five core brand equity
components, namely brand awareness, brand associations,
perceived quality, brand loyalty, and other proprietary brand
assets. Since the last component is related to the firm rather
than consumers, it was excluded by researchers who tested
this CBBE framework.
Both Aaker’s and Keller’s conceptualizations of brand
equity were widely accepted by researchers. Since percep-
tion-based brand equity is recognized as a priori to FBBE
(Aaker 1996; Baalbaki 2012; Christodoulides and de Cher-
natony 2010; Lassar et al. 1995), many studies applied
CBBE in different product contexts. However, the major-
ity of studies reflect the CBBE profile designed in Aaker’s
(1996) Brand Equity Ten Measures, with some modifica-
tions. CBBE components of awareness/familiarity, associa-
tions/image, perceived quality, consumer value, and con-
sumer loyalty have been measured from the perspectives of
the consumers or customers of conventional product, hotel,
event, restaurant as well as destination brands (e.g., Baalbaki
2012; Boo et al. 2009; Buil et al. 2008; Denizci-Guillet and
Tasci 2010a, b; Duman et al. 2018; Kim and Kim 2004,
2005; Krishnan and Hartline 2001; Lee and Back 2008,
A. D. A. Tasci
2010; Tasci 2018; Tasci and Denizci-Guillet 2011, 2016;
Tasci et al. 2016; Pike et al. 2010; Yoo and Donthu 1997,
2001).
Unique CBBE and FBBE indicators/metrics proposed
for destination and place brands
As displayed in Table 1, destination or place CBBE was
mostly studied with Aaker’s awareness/familiarity, associa-
tions/image, perceived quality, and consumer loyalty com-
ponents. However, other unique metrics were also included,
namely salience, brand value, satisfaction, assets, destina-
tion resources, value in use, brand performance, attach-
ment, emotions, and brand judgment. In one of the initial
place branding studies, Papadopoulos (2004) defined brand
equity as “real and/or perceived assets and liabilities that
are associated with a place and distinguish it from others”
(p. 43). Later, Baker (2007) defined brand equity as “[t]he
accumulated loyalty, awareness and financial value of the
brand over time” and developed a 7A destination Model that
suggests performance measures to include brand adoption
by destination stakeholders, community pride and support
for the destination brand, brand consistency, media cover-
age, destination stakeholders’ attitudes toward and feedback
about the destination, as well as the tangible and intangi-
ble elements such as physical attributes and people. Place
infrastructure is considered as a tangible attribute by several
researchers (e.g., Gaggiotti et al. 2008; Hankinson 2004;
Kavaratzis 2004; Hanna and Rowley 2011).
For destination brands, Tasci and Gartner (2009)
acknowledged various elements such as history, architec-
ture, and heritage as brand meanings rooted in both sup-
ply-side and demand side of a destination; however, they
boiled brand equity to most measurable elements including
awareness, image, quality, value, loyalty, patents, and trade-
marks. Zenker and Martin (2011) acknowledged that non-
monetary place brand equity measures, particularly image,
are the common measures used to evaluate brand success;
they also suggested resident satisfaction to be included as
a critical component of brand equity to derive the success
of a place brand. Florek (2012) identified two components
of place brand equity to be perceptual such as image and
behavioral such as willingness to pay. More recently, Florek
and Kavaratzis (2014) defined place brand equity “as the
stakeholders’ response to the place brand” (p. 105) and con-
sidered it as an indicator of sustainable place development.
Using similar meanings identified by Tasci and Gartner
(2009) for destination brand equity, Lucarelli (2012) devel-
oped a more complex city brand equity conceptualizations
in order to reflect the complexity of place brands. Lucarelli
(2012) conducted a review of city branding literature in
order to offer and evaluation framework for “city brand
equity” (p. 240). He encountered obstacles due to different
Table 1  Different consumer/customer-based brand equity (CBBE) components and the number of scale items used by researchers
Author(s) Product(s) Population Aware- Famili- Asso- Image Per- Loy- Con- Brand Sali- Trust/ Sat- Unique- Assets Reli- Brand Destina- Value Brand Attach- Emo- Brand
ness arity cia- ceived alty sumer value ence Trust- isfac- ness abil- choice tion in use perfor- ment tions/ judge-
tions quality value worthi- tion ity resources mance feel- ment
ness ings

Aaker Brands in Concep- X X X X

(1991, general tual
1992)
Keller Brands in Concep- X X
(1993, general tual
2003)
Aaker Brands in Concep- 4 8 3 4
(1996) general tual
Kim et al. Luxury Korean 1 14 11 6
(2003) hotels travelers
at an
airport
Kim and Luxury Korean 3 14 11 6
Kim hotels travelers
(2004) and chain at an
restau- airport
rants
Kim and 3 14 10 6
Kim
(2005)
Kayaman Hotels Customers 8 22 4
and
Arasli
(2007)
Gartner Destina- Visitors Y 15 9 7 4
et al. tion-
Exploring the analytics for linking consumer‑based brand equity (CBBE) and financial‑based…

(2007) Macau
Roth et al. Country- Students in 4 7 2 2
(2008) Spain Spain
applied
Yoo and
Donthu
(2001)
Lee and Event- Attendees 2 14 3 3 3 3
Back CHRIE
(2008) confer-
Lee and ence
Back
(2010)
validated
Boo et al. Destina- Past visi- 4 4 4 4 5
(2009) tion- Las tors
Vegas
and
Atlantic
City
Table 1  (continued)
Author(s) Product(s) Population Aware- Famili- Asso- Image Per- Loy- Con- Brand Sali- Trust/ Sat- Unique- Assets Reli- Brand Destina- Value Brand Attach- Emo- Brand
ness arity cia- ceived alty sumer value ence Trust- isfac- ness abil- choice tion in use perfor- ment tions/ judge-
tions quality value worthi- tion ity resources mance feel- ment
ness ings

Pike et al. Destina- Chilean 4 4 4 5

(2010) tion-Aus- consum-
tralia ers
Denizci- Disney- Multina- 1 1 2 4 1 1
Guillet McDon- tional
and Tasci ald’s consum-
(2010a) alliance ers
Denizci- Hotel-res- Multina- 1 1 2 4 1 1
Guillet taurant tional
and Tasci co- consum-
(2010b) brands ers
Zanfardini Destina- General X X X X
et al. tions in consum-
(2011) Argen- ers (title
tina says
cus-
tomer-
based
brand
equity)
Tasci and Hotel and Multina- 1 1 2 4 1 1
Denizci- restau- tional
Guillet rant co- consum-
(2011) brands ers
Tasci Destination Concep- X X X X X X X X
(2011) brands in tual
general
Horng et al. Destina- Foreign 3 12 9 3
(2012) tion- Tai- visitors
wan
Hsu et al. Luxury Hotel cus- 4 4 4 4
(2012) hotels in tomers
China
Seric and Luxury and Customers 7 3 5
Gil-Saura first class
(2012) hotels in
Croatia
Yuwo et al. Destina- Visitors 3 6 9 4
(2013) tion-
Applied Bandung
Konec- City,
nik and Indonesia
Gartner
(2007)
A. D. A. Tasci
Table 1  (continued)
Author(s) Product(s) Population Aware- Famili- Asso- Image Per- Loy- Con- Brand Sali- Trust/ Sat- Unique- Assets Reli- Brand Destina- Value Brand Attach- Emo- Brand
ness arity cia- ceived alty sumer value ence Trust- isfac- ness abil- choice tion in use perfor- ment tions/ judge-
tions quality value worthi- tion ity resources mance feel- ment
ness ings

Seric et al. Luxury and Customers 7 7 4

(2014) first class
hotels in
Croatia
Bianchi Chile, Bra- Australian 4 4 3 4 4
et al. zil and tourists
(2014) Argen-
tina
Kladou and Rome Travelers 3 3 3 4 5
Kehagias
(2014)
Oh and Hsu Upscale Customers 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
(2014) hotels in
China
Lin et al. Hotel Customers 3 3 3 3
(2015) brands
Kashif Destina- Visitors 3 4 17 3
et al. tion-
(2015) Lahore
Fort,
Pakistan
Vinh and Destina- Domestic 4 4 4 4
Nga tion- and
(2015) Danang interna-
City, tional
Vietnam visitors
Exploring the analytics for linking consumer‑based brand equity (CBBE) and financial‑based…

Gómez Wineries in visitors 4 4 4

et al. Spain
(2015)
Liu et al. National Visitors 4 4 12 4 3
(2015) Museum
of Natu-
ral Sci-
ences in
Taiwan
Lu et al. Ethnic Customers 3 4 3 4
(2015) restau-
rants in
the US
Table 1  (continued)
Author(s) Product(s) Population Aware- Famili- Asso- Image Per- Loy- Con- Brand Sali- Trust/ Sat- Unique- Assets Reli- Brand Destina- Value Brand Attach- Emo- Brand
ness arity cia- ceived alty sumer value ence Trust- isfac- ness abil- choice tion in use perfor- ment tions/ judge-
tions quality value worthi- tion ity resources mance feel- ment
ness ings

Yang et al. United Mainland 3 3 4 3

(2015) States, Chinese
Europe, travelers
Hong
Kong,
Macau,
and
Taiwan
Tasci and Hotel-res- Multina- 1 1 2 4 1 1
Denizci- taurant tional
Guillet and consum-
(2016) hotel- ers
retail co-
brands
Pike and Destina- Consum- 4 4 3 4 4
Bianchi tion— ers in
(2016) Australia New
Zealand
and
Chile
Frias Spain British 3 2 3 4 5
Jamilena tourists
et al.
(2017)
Tasci City brands General 1 1 1 1 1 1
(2016a) in the consum-
US ers
Tasci Destination Concep- X X X X X X
(2016c) brands tual
Tasci et al. Orlando, General 15 7 7 3 3
(2016) USA US con-
sumers
Herrero Cantabria Interna- 3 6 3 3
et al. region, tional
(2017) Spain visitors
Martínez Hotels in customers 3 6 6 4
and Can-
Nishiy- tabria,
ama Spain
(2017)
Tasci City brands General 1 1 1 1 1 1
(2018) in the US and
US multi-
national
consum-
ers
A. D. A. Tasci
 Exploring the analytics for linking consumer‑based brand equity (CBBE) and financial‑based…

disciplinary approaches, different methods, the lack of

judge-
Brand

ment
uniform terminologies, and unclarified measurements. He

4
also cautioned about transfer of an abstract concept such as
Emo-
tions/
feel-
ings
“equity” from the branding in the conventional business con-

The numbers reflect the number of dimensions retained after purification of scales. X is placed for conceptual studies. Y is placed for studies measuring a component without a scale
text to complex place branding context. The results revealed
Attach-

that city brands are characterized by intangible and tangible

ment

3
elements and outcomes that include image, identity, and the
perfor-
mance
Brand

socio-political and economical aspects. He categorized the

city branding outcomes into Image-Identity, socio-political,

7
in use
Value

and economical categories. He used image and identity

4

interchangeably while referring to perceptions and attitudes

resources

toward a city brand. His second category of outcomes, socio-

Destina-

political impact refers to social, cultural, and political out-

tion

15

comes of city branding; however, these outcomes could be

choice
Brand

also reflected in the image-identity component from internal

stakeholders’ point of view. His third outcome, the economic
Reli-
abil-

impact refers to the commonly used positive and negative

ity

economic indicators such as tourism numbers, economic

Assets

improvement or decrease, and economic investment. He also

included consumer behavior in this category; however, some
Unique-

consumer behavior indicators are more intangible aspects

ness

such as image, rather than tangible behaviors such as actual

visitation. He eventually developed a definition of city brand
Trust- isfac-
Sat-

worthi- tion

equity inclusive of visual identities, positions, events, cam-

3

paigns, “spatial and socio-cultural features, such as artifacts

Trust/

ness

heritage, and historical elements… different processes and

institutions, such as governing bodies, network arenas and
Sali-
ence

institutionalized legal procedures” (pp. 239–240).

Brand

Since destination and place brands are unique and com-

value

plex products with multiple stakeholders with different

expectations, costs, and benefits from branding (Jorgensen
sumer
value
Con-

2015; Kavaratzis and Ashworth 2005; Lucarelli 2012; Tasci

2

and Gartner 2009; Zenker et al. 2017; Zenker and Martin

Loy-
alty

2011), most of the conventional FBBE metrics are difficult

quality
ceived

to adjust for destinations and places. As discussed before,

Per-

financial indicators focus on robust financial measures of a

Image

branded product compared to an unbranded product, which

9

causes problems in their applications to certain brand con-

Famili- Asso-

texts such as services and destinations. First, comparison of

tions
cia-

a destination brand to a compatible unbranded destination

product is not a realistic metric since all destinations are
arity

already branded with certain signifiers. In addition, a com-

patible branded product is not easy to find since all destina-
Population Aware-
ness

tions are unique even if they offer similar products. However,

3

popularity can be used as a benchmark for the compatibility

interna-
Domestic
visitors

visitors

visitors
Interna-
tional

tional

Turkish

of tourist destinations in the same category; namely cities,

and

regions, and countries. Furthermore, destinations with simi-

lar tourist attractions and services can be used as compatible
Table 1  (continued)
Product(s)

A destina-
ski des-
tination

tion in

Sarajevo
Swedish

brands. Another limitation in the destination brand context is

Spain
Åre

the lack of financial metrics such as cash flow and prices as

benchmarks against competitors. Therefore, several destina-
San Martín
Chekalina
Author(s)

(2018)

(2018)

(2018)

tion and place brand researchers have proposed and meas-

Duman
et al.

et al.

et al.

ured unique place or destination-specific financial metrics.


In one of the earlier studies, Papadopoulos and Heslop
(2002) transferred the country-of-origin concept to coun-
try brand equity for investors. Jacobsen (2009, 2012) built
on country brand equity for investors and developed the
“Investor-based Place Brand Equity (IPE)” concept. Jacob-
sen (2009) analyzed the literature on customer-based brand
equity models and developed a brand equity framework
from foreign direct investors’ point of view (IPE) where
place brand assets including quality, impression, promo-
tion, awareness, heritage, personality, reputation, and trust
as well as place brand values including function, distinc-
tion, prestige, and identity as IPE dimensions influencing
foreign investors’ preference for a place as an investment
location. He acknowledged the missing stakeholders includ-
ing residents and tourists in his approach and called for the
need for empirical verification in future research to validate
the relevance of equity dimensions to achieve efficient use
of public funds for building place brands attraction FDI in
different industries. Jacobsen (2012) empirically validated
IPE by using Lubeck in Germany as a case in point and
survey data from North European creative industries as FDI
sources.
Monetary metrics for places or destinations also received
attention since capital is considered as the main reason for
place marketing (Niedomysl and Jonasson 2012). Linking
image with FBBE of places, Zenker and Martin (2011)
acknowledged the importance of return on investment for
taxpayer money and developed brand equity metrics from
both the customer-centric and brand-centric perspectives
including residents’ satisfaction and their “cumulative cash
flows…over the entire time of residency” (p. 36), as well as
perceptual indicators such as residents’ image of the place
and monetary indicators such as costs, cash flows, and brand
risk factors. Even though they focused specifically on citi-
zens (residents), they also acknowledge that place brands
have diverse stakeholders as customers including the indus-
try, businesses, residents, workers, and visitors. Similarly,
Zenker et al. (2013) also linked CBBE and FBBE of place
brands and introduced a different indicator of place brand
equity by exploring different place image dimensions and
talents’ willingness to sacrifice the percentage of wages
for their preferred place. They explored the use of destina-
tion image attributes in monetary terms by using the survey
data from 1006 German talents about the 15 largest cities
in Germany.
In another study, Zenker (2014) stated that “brand equity
deals with the value, usually defined in economic terms, of
a brand beyond the physical assets associated with its manu-
facture or provision” (p. 160). He acknowledged the amount
of taxpayers’ money spent on place branding and called for
measures to capture the place brand equity to evaluate effec-
tiveness and efficiency of such investments. Appreciating
the difficulty of establishing accurate measures of place
A. D. A. Tasci
brand equity, he proposed “the advanced Brand Concept
Map (aBCM) method,” a qualitative mind mapping of brand
associations and their importance, by quantifying it with
“the brand association network value (BANV) metric,” a
multi-attribute attitude model with favorability, strength, and
uniqueness of associations (p. 158) in order to capture image
change and favorability of a place brand. Using students’
responses on the city of Hamburg, Germany, he explored the
applicability of this method and metric while cautioning that
this method captures only the image component of a place
brand equity and overlooks other components such as will-
ingness to pay, satisfaction, and investor-based brand equity.
More recently, Zavattaro et al. (2015) interviewed 12 des-
tination marketing organization (DMO) managers in a state
in the USA and found that managers have a tendency to use
proxies including web and social media analytics, visibility,
benchmarking, and revenue instead of CBBE scales. They
concluded that “place brand managers use easily under-
stood and readily gathered proxies that evaluate aspects of
consumer-based brand equity success because time, budget,
and personnel constraints often prevent holistic evaluations
of large stakeholder groups utilizing existing scales” (p.
12). They recommended managers to use dynamic capabil-
ity of absorptive capacity in managing the flow of informa-
tion consisting acquisition, assimilation, and exploitation
of knowledge in order to achieve improvement in different
metrics of success.
Jorgensen (2015) acknowledged that FBBE is easier to
assess for conventional business companies by referring
to balance sheet as the common measure, while the task
is more complicated for place or destination brands. He
listed economic turnover as the tangible metrics of place
brand equity, specifically, revenues from cultural events,
sponsorhips and business contracts, resident growth due
to branding, employment and new company development.
He described the process of Danish city Horsens’ transfor-
mation from a prison city to a city of culture with cultural
events funded through public taxes from the city council and
private funds from companies. Keeping them as the major
shareholders to expect a return on investment on their brand-
ing activities, he developed “a city brand balance sheet” for
brand equity including both tangible and intangible assets
of the city brand. He listed revenues received from visitors
of the brand, Danish city Horsens resulting from the R.E.M.
concert in 2005 and Giro d’Italia in 2012, excluding the
number of hotel nights from the second event due to the
difficulty of specifying the hotels. He also mentioned a per-
sonal communication with a CEO in regard to sponsorhips
in relation to extending contracts in and outside the city as
support metric; however, no clear numeric measure was pro-
vided. In addition, he identified the resident growth in the
city between 2006 and 2012, which was higher for Horsen’s
compared to neighboring cities; however, only one-third of
Exploring the analytics for linking consumer‑based brand equity (CBBE) and financial‑based…
new residents attributed their decision to cultural events. He
found the unemployment rate to be growing but attributed
this to the economic crisis rather than brand success alone.
No new company establishment was attributed to brand-
ing activities. Jorgensen (2015) acknowledged the lack of
time series, benchmark, or comparable data related to brand
equity metrics of place brands. Keeping in mind both public
and private shareholders and stakeholders, he proposed a
city brand balance sheet that includes investments as the
inputs and tangible and intangible first-order and second-
order assets as the effects. First-order effects include the
quality and quantity of media coverage and the quantity
of viewers and visitors of different information sources of
the place brand. The second-order effects include resident
growth, attitude, and perception, growth in private busi-
nesses, taxes, awareness, rankings, hotel night sales, and
employment, etc. He called for “the need for systematic and
more consistent measurements reflecting development in
tangible as well as intangible assets, time series and bench-
mark to describe possible causality and impact of a brand
project” (p. 159).
For destination brands, Tasci and Denizci (2009) recom-
mended using the commonly accepted tourism economic
impact indicators such as the number of visitors, revenues,
tourism taxes, and tourism jobs as objective financial met-
rics. For price premium, they suggested both objective finan-
cial metrics including: “…package or single-item prices
such as hotel room rates, restaurant meal prices, and attrac-
tion entry fees” and subjective metrics such as current and
potential consumers’ “willingness to pay higher prices for
the destination brand versus other destinations with similar
products” (p. 9). Later, Tasci (2016a) included “percep-
tion of price premium”—without “willingness to pay”—
as a dimension of a new CBBE component, namely brand
value. More recently, Tasci (2016b) used Crimmins’ (2000)
method in order to calculate the price premium of destina-
tion brands; the results revealed that the method is effective
in revealing differential perceptions of destination brands.
Despite a considerable amount of research on destination
CBBE and FBBE, a consensus has not been reached in terms
of either the metrics or their presumed relationship. As the
number of CBBE studies increased in different brand con-
texts, the lack of focus on the relationship between CBBE
and FBBE became clear. Even though CBBE is assumed
to be the main thrust behind the FBBE (Aaker 1996; Baal-
baki 2012; Christodoulides and de Chernatony 2010; Lassar
et al. 1995), this assumption was not validated by empirical
research in published literature. Vuignier (2016) conducted
an extensive review of place branding and marketing litera-
ture and identified 1172 articles published in 98 different
journals during the last four decades. Besides issues in con-
ceptualizations, he identified lack of empirical evidence and
thus unsubstantiated relationships such as the influence of
place marketing on attractiveness. He concluded that place
branding literature “is a booming field with a fragmented
theoretical foundation that is often based on case study anec-
dotes rather than on sound empirical research” (p. 16). Stud-
ies typically use different CBBE and FBBE metrics while
measuring brand equity of different destinations or places,
and thus, results cannot be claimed to be conclusive. In addi-
tion, FBBE metrics for destinations have been proposed and
still awaiting for empirical testing. As mentioned in intro-
duction, identifying the link between destination CBBE and
FBBE is critical especially for DMOs that depend on public
funds and scrutinized for their benefit to diverse stakehold-
ers. Thus, there is a need for integrating destination and
place CBBE and FBBE in order to identify the main CBBE
factors driving the FBBE of a destination or place brand.
Hence, in the current study the destination FBBE met-
rics proposed by Tasci and Denizci (2009) will be used in
relation to the most commonly accepted CBBE metrics in
order to understand the link between perceptual and finan-
cial equity. More specifically, the study will investigate if a
strong CBBE actually leads to high FBBE for destinations.
For scientific parsimony or Occam’s razor for the simplest
explanation (Hempel 1966; Shoemaker et al. 2004; Popper
2005; Weber 2012), the current study included four original
components designed by Aaker (1992, 1996) -familiarity
(awareness), image (associations), perceived quality, and
brand loyalty—and two additional components ramified
from Aaker’s original measures—consumer value (perceived
value), and brand value (perceived price premium).
Methodology
Different destination brands were used to check the valid-
ity of the CBBE-FBBE relationship for different destination
types in different categories. The study destinations included
NY City, Miami, Orlando, Las Vegas, and Tampa, which are
both domestically and globally popular tourism destinations.
The National Travel and Tourism Office’s (2016) visitation
statistics reveal that in 2015, NY City was the 1st, Miami
was the 2nd, Orlando was the 4th, Las Vegas was the 6th,
and Tampa was the 20th most visited US cities by interna-
tional visitors. Well-known in their tourism product catego-
ries, these destination brands have the potential to be desti-
nation brands with strong CBBE, which could help identify
the link between CBBE and FBBE. With a record 68 million
visitors in 2016 (Pedicini 2017), Orlando became the most
visited city in the USA and reportedly surpassed NY City in
total number of visitors, which received 60.3 million visitors
(Sugar 2016). Orlando’s close competitor, namely Tampa,
was included in order to have a comparability between
brands of similar products. Finding two identical destina-
tion brands is impossible; however, Orlando (housing Walt

Disney World and Universal) and Tampa (housing Busch
Gardens and Adventure Island) are considered similar since
both have themed attractions and are popular destinations
among domestic visitors.
Survey research and desktop research were applied in
order to achieve the objectives of this study. A survey was
conducted to collect data on the CBBE of cities from visi-
tors’ and non-visitors’ perspectives, which was also used in
Tasci (2018). Based on a modified version of Aaker’s (1996)
framework, CBBE variables included overall familiarity
(awareness), overall image perception (associations), con-
sumer value (or value for money), perceived quality, brand
value (perceived price premium), and consumer loyalty
(likelihood to visit within the next 12 months). The survey
was designed on Qualtrics and conducted on a random sam-
ple of online respondents registered on Amazon’s Mechani-
cal Turk. Sociodemographic variables included age, gender,
level of education, marital status, race/ethnicity, income
level, and residence, which included a choice for respondents
who do not reside in the USA. All CBBE components were
measured with a single-item 10-point scale in order to avoid
respondent fatigue while repeating the same measures for
multiple destinations. The survey questions were designed
as a slider bar type for all destinations as below:
• Familiarity: Please indicate your familiarity with the
following cities by moving the slider on the 10-point
familiarity scale below (1 = very unfamiliar, 10 = very
familiar).
• Image: Please indicate the overall image of the following
cities for you by moving the slider on the 10-point scale
below (1 = very poor, 10 = excellent).
• Brand value (perceived price premium): Please indicate
your perception of premium prices in products and ser-
vices in the following cities by moving the slider on the
10-point scale below. (1 = very low, 10 = very high). Per-
ception of high-low prices without price preference or
willingness to pay is used in order to differentiate from
loyalty in Aaker’s (1996) framework.
• Consumer value: Please indicate your perception of value
for money in the following cities by moving the slider on
the 10-point scale below (1 = very low, 10 = very high).
• Quality: Please indicate the overall quality of the fol-
lowing cities by moving the slider on the 10-point scale
below (1 = very low, 10 = very high).
• Loyalty: Please indicate your likelihood to visit the
following cities for vacation purposes within the next
12 months by moving the slider on the 10-point scale
below (1 = very unlikely, 10 = very likely).
The current study uses destination brands with many
diverse product attributes that are impossible to standard-
ize to conduct a conjoint analysis of price premium with
A. D. A. Tasci
a multi-attribute utility function. Instead, consumers’ per-
ception of perceived price differences among destinations
subjectively standardized on a 10-point slider bar is pre-
ferred. This measure did not give any reference to respond-
ents’ willingness to pay for prices in order to differentiate
this measure from consumer value. Besides perceived price
premium, the survey also included the expected amount to
spend on a 3-day vacation including accommodation, food
and beverage, and transportation expenses, as a more defini-
tive measure of price premium perception.
In addition, a past visit question was included for Orlando
in order to compare its rankings between actual customers
and general consumers. Consumer-based brand equity is
inclusive of all consumers in general, both customers (visi-
tors) and non-customers (non-visitors), whereas customer-
based brand equity is exclusively from the perspective of
actual customers (visitors). Even though general consumer-
based brand equity can include the perspectives of actual
customers, comparing the CBBE between customers (visi-
tors) and non-customers (non-visitors) may yield impor-
tant information in terms of the level of mismatch between
the actual product experience and pure perceptions of the
product. Therefore, both consumer-based and customer-
based brand equity terms are used in discussing results and
implications.
Data were collected over an 8-day period in summer
2015, including both weekdays and weekends in order to
include diverse types of respondents with different work/
life styles. A total of 2475 surveys were collected; however,
cases with missing values on different variables revealed
different number of samples for different analyses displayed
in Tables 2 and 3. All destination brands were analyzed for
the entire sample as well as by segmenting by residence (US
residents, other nationalities) in order to check the robust-
ness of their CBBE across different segments. Orlando
was also analyzed for the entire sample and by segment-
ing respondents based on past visit. The data were analyzed
using the frequencies, descriptive statistics and t test func-
tions of SPSS Version 24.
Desktop research was also conducted in order to collect
data on the financial equity of the same destinations. Follow-
ing suggestions by Tasci and Denizci (2009), key tourism
impact indicators were taken as indicators of FBBE in the
destination brand context. First, international tourist arriv-
als and market share data between 2009 and 2015 for dif-
ferent destinations have been gathered from the reports pro-
duced by the Office of Travel & Tourism Industries (OTTI)
or the National Travel & Tourism Office (NTTO) in the
International Trade Administration of the US Department
of Commerce. Since NTTO reports only international visitor
statistics, e-mail correspondence with and online informa-
tion from official DMOs, and online information from the
media (i.e., Orlando Sentinel) were also used to gather other
Exploring the analytics for linking consumer‑based brand equity (CBBE) and financial‑based…

tourism metrics including the number of travelers, the num- Table 2  Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents
ber of domestic travelers, tourism revenues, tourism taxes N = 2298–2418
and tourism jobs. Keeping sustainability in mind with all
environmental, cultural, social, and economic costs along Age (Mean) 33.6
with the benefits, it is necessary to consider the number of Gender (%)
visitors yielding tourism revenues. Therefore, a revenue per Male 49.1
visitor metric is also created by dividing total visitor spend- Female 50.3
ing by total number of visitors. Do not wish to identify 0.5
In order to see if CBBE and FBBE are aligned in the des- Highest level of education (%)
tination context, respondent ratings on the CBBE variables High school 20.8
were ranked individually first. An indexed measure of CBBE Vocational school/associate 10.9
was also created following the method designed by Krishnan College/University 54.5
and Hartline (2001). A holistic CBBE score for each des- Master’s or PhD 13.4
tination brand was calculated by summing all CBBE scale Other 0.4
items in order to generate an overall difference score. This Marital status (%)
score was then divided by the score of the weakest brand. Single 44.0
This resulted in an indexed CBBE measure reflecting “the Married 37.3
percentage increase in brand equity ascribed to the strong Divorced 5.3
brand relative to the weak brand. This procedure standard- Separated 1.1
izes each respondent’s rating relative to the lower level of Living with a partner 11.5
brand equity ascribed to the weaker brand” (Krishnan and Other 0.8
Hartline 2001, p. 335). Finally, average ratings, the holistic Race/ethnicity (%)
CBBE score, and the indexed CBBE measure of different White/Caucasian 74.7
destinations were ranked in order to compare to destination African American 6.6
rankings in FBBE, namely the tourism economic impact Hispanic 4.0
metrics gathered by desktop research. Asian 12.1
Other 2.5
Annual income level (%)
Results Under 15,000 18.7
15,000–24,999 17.3
The profile of respondents is reflective of typical online plat- 25,000–34,999 14.9
form sample profiles. As can be seen from Table 2, respond- 35,000–49,999 16.8
ents are almost a 50/50 split between males and females; 50,000–74,999 17.9
college and university graduates make up a little over half 75,000 and up 14.5
of respondents; single respondents make up more than 40% Nationality
of respondents and married respondents make up more than USA residents (%) 95.0
one-third. The majority (75%) belong to the white/Caucasian Other country residents (%) 5.0
race group, and about half of respondents have and annual N differs between variables due to different response rate on different
income below $35 K. Visitors to Orlando make up 58% variables; N reflects the range between minimum and maximum
and US residents make up 95% of respondents. This profile
seems to be slanted toward younger and tech-savvy respond-
ents; however, researchers revealed that despite this profile measures are also displayed in Table 3. Since Tampa was
MTurk survey results are similar to results of data collected the overall lowest rated brand on most components, Tam-
with other methods such as face-to-face, mail, and phone pa’s overall average rating was used to calculate the indexed
interviews (Buhrmester et al. 2011). CBBE measures where other cities’ overall average ratings
Table 3 displays the average ratings on the CBBE compo- were divided by that of Tampa. This measure reveals that NY
nents of destination brands along with the sum of all CBBE City is the strongest brand, followed by Orlando, Las Vegas,
average ratings, overall average of all CBBE ratings, and Miami, and Tampa, in that order. Table 3 also displays a seg-
the indexed CBBE measure calculated by dividing each mented analysis on CBBE components based on nationality
brand’s overall CBBE average by the weakest brand’s overall for all city brands and also based on past visit for Orlando.
CBBE average. As can be seen from the table, only Miami’s Compared to US residents, other nationalities provided bet-
average ratings were consistent, the second lowest on all ter ratings in general. Indexed CBBE measures reveal that all
components. The sum, overall average, and indexed CBBE cities have a stronger equity in the international respondents
Table 3  Average CBBE ratings on the CBBE components of different destinations (N = 2277–2338)
CBBE of destinations Familiaritya Imagea Brand ­valuea* Perceived ­costb Consumer Qualitya Loyaltya Sumc Averaged Indexed CBBE
­valuea ­measuree

New York 5.96 6.84 7.96 $1781.45 5.25 7.04 6.90 39.95 6.66 1.35
Orlando 5.64 6.71 6.86 $1494.81 6.09 6.56 6.38 38.24 6.37 1.29
Las Vegas 5.06 6.21 7.24 $1779.12 5.71 6.31 6.09 36.62 6.10 1.24
Miami 4.21 5.81 6.64 $1475.48 5.42 5.79 4.94 32.81 5.47 1.11
Tampa 3.91 5.21 5.43 $1088.60 5.67 5.01 4.32 29.55 4.93 1.00
Segmented CBBE of New York
NY (other nationalities, n = 115) 7.38 8.05 7.77 $2302.45 7.42 7.95 7.91 46.48 7.75 1.57
NY (US residents, n = 2223) 5.88 6.78 7.97 $1754.00 5.14 6.99 6.85 39.61 6.60 1.34
Significance of difference (t test) .000 .000 .027 .000 .000 .000 .000
Segmented CBBE of Orlando
Orlando (other nationalities, n = 115) 6.97 7.76 7.42 $2305.01 7.50 7.89 7.77 45.31 7.55 1.53
Orlando (US residents, n = 2223) 5.57 6.65 6.83 $1452.18 6.02 6.49 6.31 37.87 6.31 1.28
Significance of difference (t test) .000 .008 .279 .000 .140 .000 .000
Orlando (visitors, n = 1367) 6.70 7.13 7.04 $1323.67 6.28 6.93 7.06 41.14 6.86 1.39
Orlando (non-visitors, n = 971) 4.14 6.11 6.61 $1735.00 5.83 6.04 5.42 34.15 5.69 1.15
Significance of difference (t test) .003 .002 .000 .000 .316 .059 .000
Segmented CBBE of Las Vegas
LV (other nationalities, n = 115) 6.83 7.22 7.21 $2093.88 7.03 7.56 7.28 43.13 7.19 1.46
LV (US residents, n = 2223) 4.97 6.16 7.24 $1762.57 5.64 6.24 7.03 37.28 6.21 1.26
Significance of difference (t test) .000 .000 .073 .000 .001 .000 .000
Segmented CBBE of Miami
Miami (other nationalities, n = 115) 5.96 6.59 6.63 $2040.22 6.64 6.95 6.36 39.13 6.52 1.32
Miami (US residents, n = 2223) 4.12 5.77 6.64 $1445.77 5.35 5.73 4.87 32.48 5.41 1.10
Significance of difference (t test) .511 .500 .794 .000 .085 .338 .024
Segmented CBBE of Tampa
Tampa (other nationalities, n = 115) 5.23 5.74 6.00 $1566.64 6.16 6.10 5.94 35.17 5.86 1.19
Tampa (US residents, n = 2223) 3.84 5.19 5.40 $1063.51 5.64 4.96 4.23 29.26 4.88 0.99
Significance of difference (t test) .004 .831 .451 .000 .634 .000 .001

N and n differ between variables due to different response rate on different variables; N and n reflect the range between minimum and maximum
a
Average rating on 10-point scale (familiarity: 1 = very unfamiliar, 10 = very familiar; image: 1 = very poor, 10 = excellent; premium price: 1 = very low, 10 = very high; consumer value: 1 = very
low, 10 = very high; quality: 1 = very low, 10 = very high; loyalty (likelihood to visit): 1 = very unlikely, 10 = very likely)
b
Perceived cost of a 3-day vacation in USD
c
Sum of all CBBE ratings excluding the perceived price or cost of a 3-day vacation in USD
d
Overall average of all CBBE components (Sum/6)
e
Overall average score divided by the lowest overall average score (average/Tampa’s average)
f
Perceived price premium
A. D. A. Tasci
Exploring the analytics for linking consumer‑based brand equity (CBBE) and financial‑based…
group. Compared to non-visitors, actual visitors of Orlando
rated Orlando better than non-visitors.
If high CBBE equates to high FBBE in destination brand
context, the ranking of indexed CBBE measure is expected
to mirror destination rankings in tourism impact indicators,
which are displayed in Table 4. Ranks, market share, and
visitor number metrics in this table reflect the national level
ranking in comparison with other cities in the USA ,while
the ranks in parentheses reflect ranking among the five study
destinations included in the study. As revealed in the reports
of the National Travel and Tourism Office (NTTO) since
2010, NY City has been the top destination in the number
of international visitors and had a share of about one-third
of the total market for the past six years, followed by Miami,
Orlando, Las Vegas and Tampa, in that order.
Table 5 displays 2015 tourism indicators for most study
destinations and a couple 2014 indicators for NY City. Visi-
tor spending and tourism jobs for Orlando were not avail-
able for either year and the official DMO, Visit Orlando,
remained unresponsive to several inquiries from the author
regarding these metrics. As can be differentiated between
Tables 4 and 5, international visitor numbers of DMOs were
a little different from those reported by NTTO due to dif-
ferent sources and methods of NTTO as opposed to those
used by DMOs. Orlando is the top destination in terms of
the total number of visitors and domestic visitors; however,
NY City is the top destination in international visitors and
tourism taxes.
Table 6 displays destination rankings on all individual
CBBE components, the indexed CBBE measure, and tour-
ism indicators, or FBBE metrics. None of the destination
rankings on individual CBBE components or the indexed
CBBE measure, mirrored any of the destination rankings
on tourism indicators or FBBE metrics. Since Orlando was
missing the comparable information on three FBBE met-
rics, namely visitor spending, tourism jobs and spending per
visitor, the ranking was repeated by dropping Orlando. The
result did not change.
Discussion and implications
The purpose of the study was to investigate the assumed
positive relationship between perceptual and financial indi-
cators of brand equity in the destination brand context. For
this purpose, the CBBE metrics of a few popular tourist
destinations were measured and their FBBE metrics were
assessed using publicly available sources such as National
Travel and Tourism Office, official DMOs of the study desti-
nations, and other online information sources. The results do
not reveal a clear direct connection between the perceptual
and financial indicators of brand equity for any destination
brands included in the study. Destination rankings on any
of the CBBE components or the indexed CBBE measure do
not match exactly any of the destination rankings on finan-
cial indicators, namely the number of visitors, the number
of international visitors, international visitor market share,
the number of domestic visitors, tourism revenues, tourism
taxes, tourism jobs and tourism revenue per visitor. This
means that the assumed positive relationship between CBBE
and FBBE (Aaker 1996; Baalbaki 2012; Christodoulides and
de Chernatony 2010; Lassar et al. 1995) is not confirmed by
the findings of this study.
This lack of support for the expected relationship may
undermine the relevance of FBBE and highlight the role
of CBBE in capturing the essence of destination or place
brands. Thus, one may question the necessity of measuring
both CBBE and FBBE, and even developing a new place-
specific brand equity concept. These questions cannot be
answered until the Kuhnian point of revolution (Kuhn 1996)
is reached; this revolution point requires a critical mass of
studies testing the applicability of CBBE and FBBE for des-
tination and place brands to identify anomalies and incom-
mensurability, thus leading to crises and urging the shift
from the accepted theories, paradigms, concepts, methods,
and tools of CBBE and FBBE to the new ones more suit-
able for places or destinations. Until then, the battle between
finance and marketing paradigms requires a balance sheet
of marketing costs and benefits. A few suggestions are dis-
cussed in the next section to reach the critical mass of stud-
ies testing the commensurability of CBBE and FBBE for
place or destination brands.
The study does not reveal any relationship between strong
CBBE and sustainability of a destination either. The triple
bottom-line perspective in the sustainable tourism paradigm
requires optimum benefits, namely maximum benefits with
minimum costs in economic, environmental as well as socio-
cultural dimensions (Northcote and Macbeth 2006). Sus-
tainability of destinations is affected by visitor numbers as
well as what visitors do/use while at the destination. With
this premise, strong sustainable destination brands would be
expected to receive high tourism revenues with less num-
ber of visitors compared to their competitors and avoid the
additional pressure and footprint from an excess number of
visitors. In this study, Miami has the most sustainable out-
comes, followed by Las Vegas, NY City, and Tampa. How-
ever, the ranking of destinations on spending per visitor was
not parallel to their ranking on any CBBE component. This
relationship may exist for certain types of destinations with
different tourism offerings such as ecotourism, heritage, or
cultural tourism, which calls for future research.
Results on the segmented analysis of CBBE for different
city brands revealed that although international respondents
perceive a higher cost related to a trip to all study destina-
tions, overall perceptual equity is stronger than that of domes-
tic markets for all city brands. Interestingly, with a lower
Table 4  Ranking, market share, and visitor arrivals by international travelers to the city brands and their states between 2010 and 2015
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Cities Rank Market Visitors Rank Market Visitors Rank Market Visitors Rank Market Visitors Rank Market Visitors Rank Market Visitors
share (000) share (000) share (000) share (000) share (000) share (000)
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

New York 1 32.1 8462 1 33.3 9285 1 30.6 9107 1 29.9 9579 1 28.3 9741 1 26.4 10,132
City
Miami 3 (2) 11.8 3111 3 (2) 10.6 2956 2 (2) 11.7 3482 2 (2) 12.5 4005 2 (2) 14.1 4853 2 (2) 14.4 5509
Orlando 4 (3) 10.3 2715 5 (3) 10.0 2788 4 (3) 10.7 3184 4 (3) 11.6 3716 4 (3) 12.0 4130 4 (3) 12.3 4718
Las Vegas 6 (4) 9.2 2425 5 (4) 10.0 2788 6 (4) 9.1 2708 6 (4) 8.9 2851 6 (4) 8.7 2994 6 (4) 8.9 3409
a a
Tampa-St. 18 (5) 1.3 343 – 18 (5) 1.4 417 18 (5) 1.4 449 19 (5) 1.6 551 20 (5) 1.5 591
Peters-
burg

Source: National Travel and Tourism Office. Overseas Visitation Estimates for U.S. States, Cities, and Census Regions: Retrieved on December 13, 2016 on WWW​
http://trave​l.trade​.gov/outre​achpa​ges/downl​oad_data_table​/2010_State​s_and_Citie​s.pdf
http://tinet​.ita.doc.gov/outre​achpa​ges/downl​oad_data_table​/2011_State​s_and_Citie​s.pdf
http://trave​l.trade​.gov/outre​achpa​ges/downl​oad_data_table​/2012_state​s_and_citie​s.pdf
http://trave​l.trade​.gov/outre​achpa​ges/downl​oad_data_table​/2013_State​s_and_Citie​s.pdf
http://trave​l.trade​.gov/outre​achpa​ges/downl​oad_data_table​/2014_State​s_and_Citie​s.pdf
http://tinet​.ita.doc.gov/outre​achpa​ges/downl​oad_data_table​/2015_State​s_and_Citie​s.pdf
Ranks, market share and visitor number metrics reflect the national level ranking in comparison with other cities in the US while the ranks in parentheses reflect ranking among the five study
destinations included in the study
a
Estimate not shown due to sample size fewer than 400, based upon the OTTI statistical policy
A. D. A. Tasci
Exploring the analytics for linking consumer‑based brand equity (CBBE) and financial‑based…

Table 5  Economic Impact of tourism for study destinations in 2015

Destination Total visitors Domestic International Visitor spend- Tourism taxes Tourism jobs Spending per visitor
(million) (million) (million) ing (billion)

NY ­Citya 58.5 46.2f 12.3f $42.2 10.5 billion (2014) 362,085 (2014) $721.37
assumed the same for
2015
Orlandob 66.1 61.4f 4.7f Unavailable 230 million Unavailable
Las ­Vegasc 42.3 38.9f 3.4f $51.8 254 million 368,000 $1224.59
Miamid 15.5 8 7,5 $24.4 150 million 120,400 $1574.19
Tampae 21.8 21.3 0.5 $3.6 347 million 48,000 $165.14
a
NYC and Company (Official DMO): http://www.nycan​dcomp​any.org/resea​rch/nyc-stati​stics​-page, http://www.nycan​dcomp​any.org/commu​nicat​
ions/nyc-compa​ny-annou​nces-total​-nyc-visit​ors-surpa​sses-60-milli​on-for-first​-time, http://www.nycan​dcomp​any.org/press​/mayor​-de-blasi​o-and-
nyc-compa​ny-annou​nce-nyc-welco​med-recor​d-58.3-milli​on-v
b
Visit Orlando (Official DMO) and Orlando Sentinel (media): http://www.orlan​dosen​tinel​.com/busin​ess/touri​sm/os-visit​-orlan​do-2015-touri​st-
numbe​rs-20160​502-story​.html
c
Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (Official DMO): http://www.lvcva​.com/inclu​des/conte​nt/image​s/media​/docs/ES-YTD-2015-Revis​
ed.pdf, http://www.lvcva​.com/inclu​des/conte​nt/image​s/media​/docs/Histo​rical​-1970-to-2015.pdf
d
Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau (Official DMO): http://partn​ers.miami​andbe​aches​.com/tools​-and-resou​rces/resea​rch-and-stati​stics​
, http://partn​ers.miami​andbe​aches​.com/~/media​/files​/gmcvb​/partn​ers/resea​rch%20sta​tisti​cs/annua​l-repor​t_2015
e
Visit Tampa Bay (Official DMO): https​://www.visit​tampa​bay.com/media​-room/tampa​-touri​sm-stati​stics​-resea​rch/, https​://res-1.cloud​inary​.com/
simpl​eview​/image​/uploa​d/v1/clien​ts/tampa​bay/Tampa​_EIS_CY201​5_6dd6b​4ef-e3a4-4e4e-91de-e875b​64f5a​cd.pdf
f
Input using NTTO figures in Table 4

perceived cost of a 3-day vacation, actual visitors of Orlando
also revealed a stronger perceptual equity than non-visitors for
Orlando. Visitors’ perceived cost being the lowest and non-
visitors’ perceived cost being the second highest may imply
an inflating role of the lack of familiarity. Therefore, the mar-
keting communication of DMOs may be helpful in increasing
familiarity and providing a more realistic perspective on costs
related to a trip to their destination. Visitor testimonials related
to their trip costs may be effective in achieving this, especially
using diverse social media channels. Future research with on-
site surveys with actual visitors on a trip may be valuable in
terms of identifying the root causes of better or worse percep-
tions in CBBE components.
Furthermore, internationals’ higher equity, despite their
high likelihood of less first-hand experience compared to those
of domestics, may be due to the Hollywood shows that have
been storytelling for destinations and co-creating a destination
brand with the viewers’ interpretation in every corner of the
globe. The emotive potency of popular TV Shows such as CSI
(LV, NY, and Miami) may pose potential to harness for DMOs.
Future research with comparable numbers in international and
domestic groups may provide more robust findings in terms of
differences and also the root causes of differences.
Limitations and suggestions
The study poses several limitations due to the study des-
tinations, study population, and the nature of the data.
Implications may be limited in terms of geography (maybe
only relevant for US cities) and in terms of scope (maybe
only relevant for tourist destinations and not for other
target audiences such as residents, companies/investors).
Also, the relationship between CBBE and FBBE was not
tested statistically through regression or SEM models due
to data format mismatch, where CBBE data were cross-
sectional, collected from visitors and non-visitors in 2015,
while FBBE data were in a 6-year (2010–2015) time series
format for international visitor metrics and only 1-year
(2015) format for total visitor and domestic visitor met-
rics. However, even if equal-interval time series data were
available in both CBBE and FBBE, they cannot be inte-
grated in multivariate statistical tests due to mismatch in
the units of analyses. Typically, the unit of analysis in
FBBE metrics is destinations or places, while the unit of
analysis in CBBE is the stakeholders, visitors, residents,
industry, etc. Thus, integrating these two units of analy-
ses in a single test is not feasible. Regression analysis is
feasible when both CBBE and FBBE metrics pertain to
the same respondent group. Thus, the following are the
options in relating CBBE and FBBE for destinations and
places:
(1) Using cross-sectional data on multiple destinations and
a) comparing their CBBE by ranking without tests, b)
comparing their FBBE by ranking without tests. This
is what the current study did by using few cities in the
USA; however, a more robust method requires includ-
ing all major cities in the USA and even in other parts
of the world.
 A. D. A. Tasci

(2) Using time series data on a single or multiple des-

tinations and plotting their CBBE and FBBE at dif-

per visitor
Spending
ferent points in time, checking their deviations from

rank

NY
NY

LV
LV
each other, measuring the percentage of change in

M
M

T
T
a
ism jobs CBBE and FBBE in different times and comparing the
changes to see if there is a link between them.
Tour-

rank

NY
NY

LV
LV (3) Using cross-sectional data on multiple destinations or

M
M

T
T
a
time series data on single or multiple destinations in
Tourism

terms of both CBBE and FBBE pertaining to the same

taxes
rank

NY
NY

visitor segments (i.e., visitation or revenues from one

LV
LV

M
O

T
T

or more specific segments and CBBE ratings of the

spending

same specific segments) and measuring the influence

Visitor

of CBBE on FBBE by using a multiple regression func-

rank

NY
NY

LV
LV

M
M

T
T

tion in a similar fashion to demand analysis as follows:

a
International Domestic

Visitationij = f (Familiairityij , Imageij , Qualityij ,

market share visitor
rank

NY
NY

LV
LV

M
M
O

Consumer Valueij , Brand Valueij ,

T
T

Loyaltyij ),
FBBE indicators

where ­Visitationij = visitation by ­originj for ­destinationi;

rank

NY
NY

LV
LV

M
M
O

T
T

­F amiliarity ij = Familiarity with ­d estination i in

­o rigin j; ­I mage ij = Image of ­d estination i in ­o rigin j;
CBBE meas- visitor
Total

­Qualityij = Quality perception of d­ estinationi in o­ riginj;

rank

NY
NY

LV
LV

M
M
O

T
T

Consumer ­Value ij = Perceived consumer value of

­destinationi in ­originj; Brand ­Valueij = Perceived brand
value of d­ estinationi in o­ riginj; ­Loyaltyij = Consumer
ure rank
Perceived Consumer Quality rank Loyalty rank Indexed

loyalty toward ­destinationi in ­originj.

NY
NY

LV
LV

M
M
O

T
T

Considering the influence of many macro-environmental

factors such as natural and human caused disasters and
issues on demand for a destination, these factors need to
be controlled in such regression functions as well. For time
NY
NY

LV
LV

M
M
O

T
T

series and comparable data in both CBBE and FBBE met-

rics, a great deal of collaboration is needed between desti-
Table 6  Destination ranks in different CBBE and FBBE indicators/metrics

nation and place branding researchers and DMOs and other

place management authorities. This is a daunting task con-
NY
NY

LV
LV

M
M
O

T
T

sidering the complexities involved in coordinating multiple

cost rank value rank

stakeholders. In addition, achieving comparable data on

multiple destinations is difficult due to different practices
NY
NY

LV
LV

and techniques used for tracking FBBE indicators (tourism

M
M
O

T
T

Ranking without Orlando due to unavailable data

numbers) and often total lack of data on CBBE indicators.

Thus, investigating the link between CBBE and FBBE by
NY
NY

LV
LV

comparing destinations or places may be inefficient goal. A

M
M
O

T
T

more plausible choice may be focusing on one or few des-

Image rank Brand

tinations or places as cases. In other words, if both CBBE

value
rank

NY
NY

LV
LV

and FBEE indicators of a destination brand can be tracked

M
M
O

T
T
Ranking without Orlando

over a period to see the movements of CBBE and FBBE

indicators, it could be inferred as the level and direction of
their relationship.
NY
NY

LV
LV

M
M
O
CBBE indicators

T
T

Since destination or place brands involve complexities

from multiple stakeholders, case study method may be
Familiarity

more effective than cross-sectional studies in studying the

relationship of destination CBBE and FBBE. Case study
NY
LV
rank

M
NY

LV

T
M
O

a
Exploring the analytics for linking consumer‑based brand equity (CBBE) and financial‑based…
is “scholarly inquiry that investigates a contemporary phe-
nomenon within its real-life context, when the boundaries
between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident;
and in which multiple sources of evidence are used” (Yin
1994, p. 33). The case study method embraces multiple
research paradigms where a specific phenomenon is inves-
tigated deeply and completely by observing (without con-
trolling) all variables and their relationships from all dif-
ferent perspectives, with both qualitative and quantitative
techniques of data, each case individually or between cases
(cross-case analysis) (Dooley 2002). Researchers agree
that destination or place brand equity measurement should
include various different methods (Lucarelli 2012; Tasci
and Gartner 2009; Zenker and Martin 2011). Single cases
of destinations or places can be conducted using uniform
brand equity measures repeatedly at different intervals
in order to track and identify relationships of CBBE and
FBBE. Also, cross-case analyses by using destinations or
places with similar characteristics can be used to compare
the results for triangulation and external validity. Cross-
case analyses may also be time efficient in providing the
data for inferential statistics. With such in-depth analyses,
relevant and irrelevant measures can be identified and a
well-accepted CBBE and FBBE framework can be solidi-
fied. In such case study research, the method needs to be
followed rigorously. As Vuignier (2016) also detected, cur-
rently some researchers do not follow the detailed analysis
of a destination or place and while others call their survey-
based studies as case study because of focus on a single
destination. This practice not only leads to conceptual and
methodological confusions but also misleads the reader
in terms of the internal validity of findings related to a
destination.
As was observed by Vuignier (2016) researchers from
different fields investigating place, nation, or destination
branding have a tendency to produce their work in silos.
For example, there seems little cross-referencing between
destination brand researchers and place brand research-
ers even though their focus is the same object. This is
also a root cause of the conceptual confusion since eve-
ryone creates their own concepts and definitions rather
than concept stretching across different disciplines. This
also results in incomplete measures of brand equity. From
both place and destination perspectives, brand complexi-
ties arise from involvement of multiple stakeholders with
diverse investments in and expectations from the brand.
When studied from a destination perspective, DMOs are
acknowledged as the branding agent while missing the
other public or private stakeholders such as councils,
municipalities, and commissions. On the other hand,
when studied from a place perspective, the opposite is
the case. Even though both perspectives acknowledge
the inclusion of residents as a major stakeholder, stud-
ies focusing on resident-based brand equity of a place
or destination brand are rare. Therefore, destination and
place brand researchers need to synergize and harness
the conceptual and methodological developments in other
fields with an interdisciplinary approach of public policy
and planning, geography, land planning and urban devel-
opment, and tourism. Interdisciplinary research revolves
around collaboration, integration, cross-fertilization of
expertise, knowledge, concepts, data, philosophies, per-
spectives, and methods from multiple disciplines in order
to better understand a complex phenomenon, through
co-construction and co-production (Darbellay and Stock
2012; Klein 2012). With such dynamic hybridization, des-
tination or place CBBE and FBBE from all stakeholder
perspectives can be approximated for a holistic theoretical
development.
The current destination and place branding literature
reflects the CBBE and FBBE indicators listed in Table 7.
Including all these indicators in one study may be unre-
alistic. Keeping the principle of parsimony, simplicity,
or Occam’s razor (Hempel 1966; Shoemaker et al. 2004;
Kamps 1999; Popper 2005; Wacker 1998; Weber 2012), the
most pertinent indicators for specific destinations or places
can be selected to achieve the simplest explanation for des-
tination or place CBBE and FBBE.
Conclusion
The findings of the study do not help justifying the need to
subsidize DMOs with public funds since their marketing
efforts in improving market metrics such as image, quality,
value, and loyalty do not seem to translate into improved
financial equity for destination brands. Regardless of the
unsupportive findings for the functionality of DMOs, the
current study provides a theoretical and methodological
framework to continue this line of research by applying
different destination or place brands. With their budgets
at stake, DMOs and other place management authorities
may be motivated to collaborate with researchers in defin-
ing a standard destination CBBE and FBBE metric system
in order to enable continuity and comparability of research
findings among different destination brands. Finally, the
CBBE and FBBE indicators from destination and place
branding perspectives and different stakeholder perspec-
tives (Table 7) signal the need for destination management
and marketing authorities to synergize their resources and
efforts for more holistic branding outcomes in both CBBE
and FBBE for diverse stakeholders involved.

Table 7  Place/destination CBBE and FBBE indicators/metrics listed in literature
CBBE metrics
From all stakeholder perspectives- industry, businesses, investors, From tourism destination brand perspective
residents, workers, and visitors
Awareness (Boo et al. 2009; Jacobsen 2012; Kladou and Kehagias
2014; Tasci and Gartner 2009; Yang et al. 2015)
Familiarity (Gartner et al. 2007; Tasci 2018)
Associations (Kashif et al. 2015; Kladou and Kehagias 2014; Roth
et al. 2008)
Image (Florek 2012; Gartner et al. 2007; Horng et al. 2012; Jacobsen
2012; Lucarelli 2012; Pike and Bianchi 2016; San Martín et al.
2018; Tasci 2018; Tasci and Gartner 2009; Tasci et al. 2016; Zenker
and Martin 2011)
Perceived Quality (Gartner et al. 2007; Herrero et al. 2017; Jacobsen Tourism-related jobs (Tasci and Denizci 2009)
2012; Kladou and Kehagias 2014; Pike and Bianchi 2016; Tasci
2018; Tasci and Gartner 2009; Tasci et al. 2016)
Consumer Value (Bianchi et al. 2014; Boo et al. 2009; Gartner et al.
2007; Tasci and Gartner 2009; Tasci 2018; Tasci et al. 2016)
Brand Value (Tasci 2018; Tasci et al. 2016)
Loyalty (Chekalina et al. 2018; Gartner et al. 2007; Kladou and Keha- Hotel night sales (Jorgensen 2015)
gias 2014; Pike and Bianchi 2016; Tasci 2018; Tasci and Gartner
2009; Tasci et al. 2016)
Salience (Bianchi et al. 2014; Pike and Bianchi 2016; Pike et al.
2010)
Satisfaction (San Martín et al. 2018 Zenker and Martin 2011)
Assets (Kladou and Kehagias 2014)
Destination resources (Chekalina et al. 2018)
Value in use (Chekalina et al.2018)
Brand performance (Duman et al. 2018)
Attachment (Duman et al. 2018)
Emotions/feelings (Duman et al. 2018)
Brand judgement (Duman et al. 2018)
Brand adoption by stakeholders (Baker 2007)
Brand consistency (Baker 2007)
Media coverage (Baker 2007)
Stakeholders’ attitudes (Baker 2007)
Place brand assets—quality, impression, promotion, awareness, herit-
age, personality, reputation, and trust (Jacobsen 2012)
Place brand values- function, distinction, prestige, and identity
(Jacobsen 2012)
Identity (Lucarelli 2012)
Socio-political aspects -social, cultural and political outcomes of
branding (Lucarelli 2012)
Willingness to pay (Florek 2012)
Patents and trademarks (Tasci and Gartner 2009)
From residents’ perspective
Community pride and support for branding (Baker 2007)
A. D. A. Tasci
FBBE metrics
Tourist numbers (Tasci and Denizci 2009)
Tourism revenues (Tasci and Denizci 2009)
Market share (Tasci and Denizci 2009)
Tourism taxes (Tasci and Denizci 2009)
Prices- Hotel room rates, restaurant meal prices, and attraction entry
fees (Tasci and Denizci 2009)
Consumers’ willingness to pay higher prices (Tasci and Denizci 2009)
Revenues from branding activities such as events (Jorgensen 2015)
Economic investment (Jorgensen 2015)
Sponsorships for branding activities such as events (Jorgensen 2015)
Business contracts (Jorgensen 2015)
Growth in private businesses (Jorgensen 2015)
Quality and quantity of media coverage (Jorgensen 2015)
Quantity of viewers and visitors of different information sources of
the brand (Jorgensen 2015)
Rankings (Jorgensen 2015)
Foreign direct investment (Jacobsen 2009, 2012)
From place brand perspective
Residents’ cumulative cash flows over the time of residency (Zenker
and Martin 2011)
Resident growth due to branding (Jorgensen 2015)
Employment (Jorgensen 2015)
Taxes (Jorgensen 2015)
Economic improvement or decrease (Lucarelli 2012)
Talents’ willingness to sacrifice the percentage of wages for the desti-
nation brand (Zenker et al. 2013)
Revenues from branding activities such as events (Jorgensen 2015)
Economic investment (Jorgensen 2015)
Sponsorships for branding activities such as events (Jorgensen 2015)
Business contracts (Jorgensen 2015)
Growth in private businesses (Jorgensen 2015)
Quality and quantity of media coverage (Jorgensen 2015)
Quantity of viewers and visitors of different information sources of
the brand (Jorgensen 2015)
Rankings (Jorgensen 2015)
Foreign direct investment (Jacobsen 2009, 2012)
Exploring the analytics for linking consumer‑based brand equity (CBBE) and financial‑based…
Acknowledgements The author appreciates Rosen College of Hos-
pitality Management for providing the research grant that enabled
completion of this study. In addition, the author thanks the editors and
reviewers of Place Branding and Public Diplomacy for the efficient
review process and insightful suggestions to improve the manuscript.
References
Aaker, D.A. 1991. Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value
of a brand name. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D.A. 1992. The value of brand equity. Journal of Business Strat-
egy 13 (4): 27–32.
Aaker, D.A. 1996. Measuring brand equity across products and mar-
kets. California Management Review 38 (3): 102.
Ailawadi, K.L., D.R. Lehmann, and S.A. Neslin. 2003. Revenue pre-
mium as an outcome measure of brand equity. Journal of Mar-
keting 67 (4): 1–17.
Anholt, S. 2007. Competitive identity: The new brand management
for nations, cities and regions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ba, S., and P.A. Pavlou. 2002. Evidence of the effect of trust build-
ing technology in electronic markets: Price premiums and buyer
behavior. MIS Quarterly 26 (3): 243–268.
Baalbaki, S. S. 2012. Consumer perception of brand equity measure-
ment: A new scale (Doctoral dissertation, University of North
Texas).
Baker, B. 2007. Destination branding for small cities: The essentials
for successful place branding. Portland, OH: Creative Leap
Books.
Barwise, P., C. Higson, A. Likierman, and P. Marsh. 1990. Brands as
‘separable assets’. Business Strategy Review 1: 43–59.
Bianchi, C., S. Pike, and I. Lings. 2014. Investigating attitudes towards
three South American destinations in an emerging long haul
market using a model of consumer-based brand equity (CBBE).
Tourism Management 42: 215–223.
Blackett, T. 1989. The role of brand valuation in marketing strategy.
Marketing and Research Today 17 (November): 245–248.
Blattberg, R.C., and K.J. Wisniewski. 1989. Price-induced patterns of
competition. Marketing Science 8 (Fall): 291–309.
Boo, S., J. Busser, and S. Baloglu. 2009. A model of customer-based
brand equity and its application to multiple destinations. Tourism
Management 30: 219–231.
Buil, I., L. de Chernatony, and E. Martinez. 2008. A cross-national
validation of the consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of
Product and Brand Management 17 (6): 384–392.
Buhrmester, M., T. Kwang, and S.D. Gosling. 2011. Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality,
data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 3–5.
Bush, J. 2014. DMOs: Where the money goes now. Connect Associa-
tion. https:​ //www.connec​ tyour​ meeti​ ngs.com/featur​ e/dmos-where​
-the-money​-goes-now/. Accessed 8 July 2017.
Chekalina, T., M. Fuchs, and M. Lexhagen. 2018. Customer-based des-
tination brand equity modeling: The role of destination resources,
value for money, and value in use. Journal of Travel Research
57 (1): 31–51.
Christodoulides, G., and L. de Chernatony. 2010. Consumer-based
brand equity conceptualization and measurement. International
Journal of Market Research 52 (1): 43–66.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., C. Ruble, and N. Donthu. 1995. Brand equity,
brand preference, and purchase intent. Journal of Advertising
24 (3): 25–40.
Crimmins, J.C. 2000. Better measurement and management of brand
value. Journal of Advertising Research 40: 136–144.
Darbellay, F., and M. Stock. 2012. Tourism as a complex interdis-
ciplinary research object. Annals of Tourism Research 39 (1):
441–458.
de Mortanges, C.P., and A. Van Riel. 2003. Brand equity and share-
holder value. European Management Journal 21 (4): 521–527.
Denizci-Guillet, B., and A.D.A. Tasci. 2010a. An exploratory study of
multicultural views on the Disney-McDonald’s alliance. Journal
of Travel & Tourism Marketing 27: 82–95.
Denizci-Guillet, B., and A.D.A. Tasci. 2010b. Travelers’ takes on hotel-
restaurant co-branding: Insights for China. Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Research 34 (2): 143–163.
Dooley, L.M. 2002. Case study research and theory building. Advances
in Developing Human Resources 4 (3): 335–354.
Doyle, P. 2001. Shareholder-value-based brand strategies. Journal of
Brand Management 9 (1): 20–30.
Duman, T., O. Ozbal, and M. Duerod. 2018. The role of affective fac-
tors on brand resonance: Measuring customer-based brand equity
for the Sarajevo brand. Journal of Destination Marketing and
Management 8: 359–372.
Dyson, P., A. Farr, and N.S. Hollis. 1996. Understanding, measuring,
and using brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research 36 (6):
9–21.
Farquhar, P.H. 1989. Managing brand equity. Marketing Research 1:
24–33.
Florek, M. 2012. Measuring of city brand equity. Actual Problems of
Economics 2 (7): 130–139.
Florek, M., and M. Kavaratzis. 2014. From brand equity to place brand
equity and from there to the place brand. Place Branding and
Public Diplomacy 10 (2): 103–107.
Frias Jamilena, D.M., A.I. Polo Pena, and M.A. Rodriguez Molina.
2017. The effect of value-creation on consumer-based destina-
tion brand equity. Journal of Travel Research 56 (8): 1011–1031.
Gaggiotti, H., P. Cheng, and O. Yunak. 2008. City brand management
(CBM): The case of Kazakhstan. Place Branding and Public
Diplomacy 4 (2): 115–123.
Gartner, W.C., A.D.A. Tasci, and S.I.A. So. 2007. Branding Macao: An
application of strategic branding for destinations. In Proceedings
for the 2nd international conference on destination branding and
marketing: New advances and challenges for practice, 17–19
Dec. 2007, Macao, China, 133–142.
Goldberg, S.M., P.E. Green, and Y. Wind. 1984. Conjoint analysis of
price premiums for hotel amenities. Journal of Business 57 (1):
S111–S132.
Gómez, M., C. Lopez, and A. Molina. 2015. A model of tourism des-
tination brand equity: The case of wine tourism destinations in
Spain. Tourism Management 51: 210–222.
Gregg, D.G., and S. Walczak. 2010. The relationship between website
quality, trust and price premiums at online auctions. Electronic
Commerce Research 10 (1): 1–25.
Hankinson, G. 2004. Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual
model of place brands. Journal of Vacation Marketing 10 (2):
109–121.
Hanna, S., and J. Rowley. 2011. Towards a strategic place brand-man-
agement model. Journal of Marketing Management 27 (5–6):
458–476.
Hempel, C.G. 1966. Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Herrero, A., H. San Martin, and J. Collado. 2017. Examining the
hierarchy of destination brands and the chain of effects between
brand equity dimensions. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management 6: 353–362.
Horng, J.-S., C.-H. Liu, H.-Y. Chou, and C.-Y. Tsai. 2012. Understand-
ing the impact of culinary brand equity and destination familiar-
ity on travel intentions. Tourism Management 33: 815–824.

Hsu, C.H.C., H. Oh, and A.G. Assaf. 2012. A customer-based brand
equity model for upscale hotels. Journal of Travel Research 51
(1): 81–93.
Jacobsen, B.P. 2009. Investor-based place brand equity: A theoretical
framework. Journal of Place Management and Development 2
(1): 70–84.
Jacobsen, B.P. 2012. Place brand equity: A model for establishing the
effectiveness of place brands. Journal of Place Management and
Development 5 (3): 253–271.
Johansson, J.K., and I.D. Nebenzahl. 1986. Multinational production:
Effect on brand value. Journal of International Business Studies
17 (3): 101–126.
Jorgensen, O.H. 2015. Developing a city brand balance sheet—Using
the case of Horsens, Denmark. Place Branding and Public Diplo-
macy 11 (2): 148–160.
Kamakura, W.A., and G.J. Russell. 1993. Measuring brand value with
scanner data. International Journal of Research in Marketing
10: 9–22.
Kamps, J. 1999. On criteria for formal theory building: Applying logic
and automated reasoning tools to the social sciences. In AAAI/
IAAI, July, 285–290.
Kashif, M., S.Z.M. Samsi, and S. Sarifuddin. 2015. Brand equity of
Lahore Fort as a tourism destination brand. RAE-Revista de
Administração de Empresas 55 (4): 432–443.
Kavaratzis, M. 2004. From city marketing to city branding: Towards a
theoretical framework for developing city brands. Place Brand-
ing 1: 58–73.
Kavaratzis, M., and G.J. Ashworth. 2005. City branding: An effective
assertion of identity or a transitory marketing trick? Tijdschrift
Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 96 (5): 506–514.
Kayaman, R., and H. Arasli. 2007. Customer based brand equity: Evi-
dence from the hotel industry. Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal 17 (1): 92–109.
Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing cus-
tomer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57 (1): 1–22.
Keller, K.L. 2003. Strategic brand management: Building, measur-
ing, and managing brand equity, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Pearson
Education.
Keller, K.L. 2016. Reflections on customer-based brand equity: Per-
spectives, progress, and priorities. AMS Review 6 (1–2): 1–16.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1316​2-016-0078-z.
Keller, K.L., and D.R. Lehmann. 2003. How do brand create value.
Marketing Management 12: 26–31.
Kim, H., and W.G. Kim. 2005. The relationship between brand equity
and firms’ performance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants.
Tourism Management 26: 549–560.
Kim, H.-B., W.G. Kim, and J.A. An. 2003. The effect of consumer-
based brand equity on firms’ financial performance. Journal of
Consumer Marketing 20 (4): 335–351.
Kim, W.G., and H. Kim. 2004. Measuring customer-based restaurant
brand equity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quar-
terly 45 (2): 115–131.
Kirmani, A., and V.A. Zeithaml. 1993. Advertising, perceived qual-
ity, and brand image. In Brand equity and advertising, ed. D.A.
Aaker and A. Biel, 143–161. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kladou, S., and J. Kehagias. 2014. Assessing destination brand equity:
An integrated approach. Journal of Destination Marketing and
Management 3 (1): 2–10.
Klein, J.T. 2012. Research integration: A comparative knowledge base.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Konecnik, M., and W.C. Gartner. 2007. Customer-based brand equity
for destination. Annals of Tourism Research 34 (2): 400–421.
Krishnan, B.C., and M.D. Hartline. 2001. Brand equity: Is it more
important in services? Journal of Services Marketing 15 (5):
328–342.
A. D. A. Tasci
Kuhn, T. 1996. The structure of revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Lassar, W., B. Mittal, and A. Sharma. 1995. Measuring customer-based
brand equity. The Journal of Consumer Marketing 12 (4): 11–19.
Lee, J., and K. Back. 2008. Attendee-based brand equity. Tourism Man-
agement 29 (2): 331–344.
Lee, J., and K. Back. 2010. Reexamination of attendee-based brand
equity. Tourism Management 31: 395–401.
Lehmann, D.R. 2004. Linking marketing to financial performance and
firm value. Journal of Marketing 68 (4): 73–75.
Lin, A.Y.S., Y.T. Huang, and M.K. Lin. 2015. Customer-based brand
equity: The evidence from China. Contemporary Management
Research 11 (1): 75–94.
Liu, C.R., H.K. Liu, and W.R. Lin. 2015. Constructing customer-based
museums brand equity model: The mediating role of brand value.
International Journal of Tourism Research 17 (3): 229–238.
Lu, A.C.C., D. Gursoy, and C.Y. Lu. 2015. Authenticity perceptions,
brand equity and brand choice intention: The case of ethnic res-
taurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management 50:
36–45.
Lucarelli, A. 2012. Unraveling the complexity of “city brand equity”:
A three-dimensional framework. Journal of Place Management
and Development 5 (3): 231–252. https​://doi.org/10.1108/17538​
33121​12696​48.
Madden, T.J., F. Fehle, and S. Fournier. 2006. Brands matter: An
empirical demonstration of the creation of shareholder value
through branding. Journal of the Academy Marketing Science
34 (2): 224–235.
Martínez, P., and N. Nishiyama. 2017. Enhancing customer-based
brand equity through CSR in the hospitality sector. International
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/15256​480.2017.13975​81.
Murphy, J. 1989. Good brand husbandry techniques. In Brand valua-
tion: Establishing a true and fair view, ed. J. Murphy. London:
The Interbrand Group.
Northcote, J., and J. Macbeth. 2006. Conceptualizing yield: Sustain-
able tourism management. Annals of Tourism Research 33 (1):
199–220.
Netemeyer, R.G., B. Krishnan, C. Pullig, G. Wang, M. Yagci, D.
Deane, J. Ricks, and F. Wirth. 2004. Developing and validating
measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of
Business Research 57: 209–224.
Niedomysl, T., and M. Jonasson. 2012. Towards a theory of place mar-
keting. Journal Management and Development of Place 5 (3):
223–230.
Oh, H., and C.H. Hsu. 2014. Assessing equivalence of hotel brand
equity measures in cross-cultural contexts. International Journal
of Hospitality Management 36: 156–166.
Papadopoulos, N. 2004. Place branding: evolution, meaning and impli-
cations. Place Branding 1 (1): 36–49.
Papadopoulos, N., and L. Heslop. 2002. Country equity and country
branding: Problems and prospects. Journal of Brand Manage-
ment 9 (4–5): 294–314.
Pavlou, P.A., and A. Dimoka. 2006. The nature and role of feedback
text comments in online marketplaces: Implications for trust
building, price premiums, and seller differentiation. Informa-
tion Systems Research 17 (4): 392–414. https​://doi.org/10.1287/
isre.1060.0106.
Pedicini, S. 2017. Visit Orlando: Record 68 million people visited last
year. Orlando Sentinel. http://www.orlan​dosen​tinel​.com/busin​
ess/touri​sm/os-visit​-orlan​do-touri​st-numbe​rs-20170​511-story​
.html. Accessed 8 July 2017.
Peltier, D. 2017a. Visit Florida’s 67 percent tourism funding cut is now
up to the governor. Skift. https​://skift​.com/2017/05/08/visit​-flori​
das-67-percen​ t-touris​ m-fundin​ g-cut-is-now-up-to-the-govern​ or/.
Accessed 8 July 2017.
Exploring the analytics for linking consumer‑based brand equity (CBBE) and financial‑based…
Peltier, D. 2017b. Brand USA faces extinction under Trump’s proposed
budget. Skift. https:​ //skift.​ com/2017/05/23/brand-​ usa-faces-​ extin​
ction​-under​-trump​s-propo​sed-budge​t/. Accessed 8 July 2017.
Peterson, A. 2016. Are destination marketing organizations wasting
money? It’s time to take a fresh look at destination marketing.
Iterate. https​://www.itera​temar​ketin​g.com/blog/are-desti​natio​
n-marke​ting-organ​izati​ons-wasti​ng-money​/. Accessed 8 July
2017.
Pike, S., and C. Bianchi. 2016. Destination brand equity for Australia:
Testing a model of CBBE in short-haul and long-haul markets.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 40 (1): 114–134.
Pike, S., C. Bianchi, G. Kerr, and C. Patti. 2010. Consumer-based
brand equity for Australia as a long-haul tourism destination
in an emerging market. International Marketing Review 27 (4):
434–449.
Popper, K. 2005. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Taylor &
Francis e-Library.
Roth, K.P., A. Diamantopoulos, and M.A. Montesinos. 2008. Home
country image, country brand equity and consumers’ product
preferences: An empirical study. Management International
Review 48 (5): 577–602.
San Martín, H., A. Herrero, and M.D.M. García de los Salmones.
2018. An integrative model of destination brand equity and
tourist satisfaction. Current Issues in Tourism. https​: //doi.
org/10.1080/13683​500.2018.14282​86.
Seric, M., and I. Gil-Saura. 2012. Integrated marketing communica-
tions in high-quality hotels of Central and Southern Dalmatia:
A study from the perspective of man-agers and guests. Trziste-
Market 24 (1): 67–83.
Seric, M., I. Gil-Saura, and M.E. Ruiz-Molina. 2014. How can inte-
grated marketing communications and advanced technology
influence the creation of customer-based brand equity? Evidence
from the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospital-
ity Management 39: 144–156.
Sethuraman, R., and C. Cole. 1999. Factors influencing the price pre-
miums that consumers pay for national brands over store brands.
Journal of Product & Brand Management 8 (4): 340–351.
Sheth, J.N., and R.S. Sisodia. 1995a. Feeling the heat. Marketing Man-
agement 4 (2): 8.
Sheth, J.N., and R.S. Sisodia. 1995b. Feeling the heat—Part 2. Market-
ing Management 4 (3): 19.
Shoemaker, P.J., J.W. Tankard, and D.L. Lasorsa. 2004. How to build
social science theories. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Simon, C.J., and M.T. Sullivan. 1993. The measurement and determi-
nants of brand equity: A financial approach. Marketing Science
12 (1): 28–52.
Stobart, P. 1989. Alternative methods of brand valuation. In Brand
valuation: Establishing a true and fair view, ed. J. Murphy. Lon-
don: The Interbrand Group.
Sugar, R. 2016. More tourists visited NYC in 2016 than ever before.
Curbed New York. https​://ny.curbe​d.com/2016/12/19/14005​846/
new-york-city-touri​sm-2016-recor​d. Accessed 8 July 2017.
Swait, J., T. Erdem, J. Louviere, and C. Dubelaar. 1993. The equali-
zation price: A measure of consumer-perceived brand equity.
International Journal of Research in Marketing 10: 23–45.
Tasci, A.D.A. 2011. Destination branding and positioning. In Desti-
nation marketing and management: Theories and applications,
ed. Y. Wang and A. Pizam, 113–129. Orlando: University of
Central Florida.
Tasci, A.D.A. 2016a. Consumer value and brand value: Rivals or
allies in consumer based brand equity? Tourism Analysis 21:
481–496.
Tasci, A.D.A. 2016b. Added value of a destination brand name by
Crimmins’ method. Tourism Analysis 21: 669–673.
Tasci, A.D.A. 2016c. A critical review of consumer value and its com-
plex relationships in the consumer-based brand equity network.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 5 (3): 171–
191. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.12.010.
Tasci, A.D.A. 2018. Testing the cross-brand and cross-market validity
of a consumer-based brand equity model. Tourism Management
65: 143–159. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourm​an.2017.09.020.
Tasci, A.D.A., and B. Denizci. 2009. Destination branding input-output
analysis: A method for evaluating productivity. Tourism Analysis
14 (1): 65–83.
Tasci, A.D.A., and B. Denizci-Guillet. 2011. It affects; it affects not:
A quasi-experiment on the transfer effect of co-branding on con-
sumer-based brand equity of hospitality products. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (4): 774–782.
Tasci, A.D.A., and B. Denizci-Guillet. 2016. Hospitality co-branding:
An experimental investigation of enhancement and erosion in
consumer-based brand equity. International Journal of Hospi-
tality and Tourism Administration 17 (4): 397–428. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/15256​480.2016.12261​52.
Tasci, A.D.A., J. Hahm, and D. Breiter-Terry. 2016. Consumer-based
brand equity of a destination for sport tourists versus non-sport
tourists. Journal of Vacation Marketing 24 (1): 62–78. https​://
doi.org/10.1177/13567​66716​67948​5.
Tasci, A.D.A., and W.C. Gartner. 2009. A practical framework for des-
tination branding. In Tourism branding: Communities in action,
ed. L. Cai, W.C. Gartner, and A.M. Munar, 149–158. New York:
Cognizant Communications.
Vazquez, R., B.A. Del Rio, and V. Iglesias. 2002. Consumer-based
brand equity: Development and validation of a measurement
instrument. Journal of Marketing Management 18: 27–48.
Vinh, T.T., and V.T.Q. Nga. 2015. The relationship between compo-
nents of customer-based brand equity for destination: Conceptual
framework and preliminary testing for scales. South East Asia
Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law 7 (20):
47–53.
Vuignier, R. 2016. Place marketing and place branding: A system-
atic (and tentatively exhaustive). Working Paper de l’IDHEAP,
5/2016, 92. https​://serva​l.unil.ch/resou​rce/serva​l:BIB_5ADB5​
CA4D9 ​ F C.P001/REF or https ​ : //doi.org/10.1007/s1220​
8-017-0181-3.
Wacker, J.G. 1998. A definition of theory: Research guidelines for
different theory-building research methods in operations man-
agement. Journal of Operations Management 16 (4): 361–385.
Weber, R. 2012. Evaluating and developing theories in the information
systems discipline. Journal of the Association for Information
systems 13 (1): 1–29.
Wentz, L. 1989. How experts value brands. Advertising Age 161: 24.
Yang, Y., X. Liu, and J. Li. 2015. How customer experience affects the
customer-based brand equity for tourism destinations. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing 32 (sup1): S97–S113.
Yin, R.K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods (Applied
Social Research Methods Series 5), 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Yoo, B., and N. Donthu. 1997. Developing and validating a consumer-
based overall brand equity scale for Americans and Koreans: An
extension of Aaker’s and Keller’s conceptualizations. Chicago:
In AMA summer educators conference.
Yoo, B., and N. Donthu. 2001. Developing and validating a multidi-
mensional consumer based brand equity scale. Journal of Busi-
ness Research 52 (1): 1–14.
Yovovich, B.G. 1988. What is your brand really worth? Adweek’s Mar-
keting Week 29: 18–20.
Yuwo, H., J.B. Ford, and M.S. Purwanegara. 2013. Customer-based
brand equity for tourism destination (CBBETD): The specific
case of Bundung City Indonesia. Organizations and Markets in
Emerging Economies 4–1 (7): 8–22.
 A. D. A. Tasci

Zanfardini, M., L. Tamagni, and A. Gutauskas. 2011. Customer-based Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
brand equity for tourism destinations in Patagonia. Catalan Jour- jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
nal of Communication and Cultural Studies 3 (2): 253–271.
Zavattaro, S.M., J.J. Daspit, and F.G. Adams. 2015. Assessing man-
agerial methods for evaluating place brand equity: A qualita-
tive investigation. Tourism Management 47: 11–21. https​://doi. Asli D. A. Tasci is an associate professor of tourism and hospitality
org/10.1016/j.tourm​an.2014.08.018. marketing in the Department of Tourism, Events & Attractions at the
Zenker, S. 2014. Measuring place brand equity with the advanced Rosen College of Hospitality Management at the University of Central
brand concept map (aBCM) method. Place Branding and Public Florida. Her research interests include tourism and hospitality market-
Diplomacy 10 (2): 158–166. https​://doi.org/10.1057/pb.2014.2. ing, particularly consumer behavior. She completed a number of stud-
Zenker, S., and N. Martin. 2011. Measuring success in place market- ies measuring destination image and branding with a cross-cultural
ing and branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 7 (1): perspective.
32–41.
Zenker, S., E. Braun, and S. Petersen. 2017. Branding the destination
versus the place: The effects of brand complexity and identifica-
tion for residents and visitors. Tourism Management 58: 15–27.
Zenker, S., F. Eggers, and M. Farsky. 2013. Putting a price tag on cit-
ies: Insights into the competitive environment of places. Cities
30: 133–139.