Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

A destination-branding model: An empirical analysis based on stakeholders

Juan A. García*, Mar Gómez, Arturo Molina
Department of Marketing, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Cobertizo San Pedro Mártir s/n, 45071 Toledo, Spain

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

Article history: The purpose of this study is to develop a destination-branding model based on stakeholders’ interests. It
Received 20 August 2009 is subsequently applied to a tourist destination, namely Castilla-La Mancha (CLM), thereby creating an
Accepted 13 July 2011 index that measures destination branding’s success based on similarities and differences among the
different stakeholders. The index, called Success Index of Triple-Diamonds (SITD), provides an empirical
Keywords: evaluation of the destination brand’s degree of success and confirms the existence of differences among
Destination branding
stakeholders. The current study offers useful information for developing strategy on the part of Desti-
Destination-brand equity
nation Management Organizations (DMOs) and reveals the risks of a traditional strategy focused only on
Destination image
Stakeholder
visitors that ignores the objectives of local people and entrepreneurs.
Success Index of Triple-Diamonds (SITD) Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction this respect, solid relationships among stakeholders are essential to

In the current tourist scene, place marketing and the develop-
ment of destination brands have become strategic tools all over the
world due to a growing competition among destinations. The
number of destinations adopting the concept of destination-brand-
building is larger and larger, being Australia, Brazil, Colombia and
Spain some examples of the application of a place branding strategy.
Regarding Spain, Joan Miró’s design (a sun, a star and trembling red,
yellow and black letters) represents since 1983 the national tour-
ism’s promotional graphic composition. This Country constantly
relaunches new promotional campaigns, as ‘Smile! You Are in Spain’,
to keep the brand image alive. In 2004, in order to change its image,
Colombia carried out the campaign ‘Colombia is passion!’, almost
doubling in 2006 the volume of foreign tourism. The destination-
brand-building concept has not only been limited to the coun-
tries; it has also taken place in the different regions and cities. In
2009, fourteen out of the seventeen regions in Spain had their own
destination brand. Moreover, among the cities, the popular ‘I Love
NY’, designed by Milton Glaser in 1977, tried to promote tourism.
Due to the proliferation of promotional symbols without
a defined strategy of place branding and consequently with no
brand equity (BE), destination management plays an important role.
It has to turn them into tourist brands positioned in a differential
way in the tourists’ minds (Peralba, 2007), always considering that
local people and entrepreneurs are key features of the core brand. In
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 925 268 800x5149; fax: þ34 902 204 130.
E-mail addresses: juan.garcia@uclm.es (J.A. García), mariamar.gomez@uclm.es
(M. Gómez), arturo.molina@uclm.es (A. Molina).
place branding’s success, although, their necessities can come into
conflict, what has not been sufficiently taken into account
(Hankinson, 2004).
This author indicates that place branding received considerable
attention over the past two decades in both marketing press and
academic literature. An indicator of the presence of place marketing
and place branding in academic literature is that Google Scholar
(http://scholar.google.com/) has indexed 4530 references related to
‘place marketing’ and 2270 to ‘place branding’ in all subject areas.
Since 2004, the academic interest in this field has multiplied, as
revealed by the fact that 51.2% (2320 out of 4530) references on
place marketing and 73.1% (1660 out of 2270) on place branding are
recent (from 2004 to June 2010).
The conceptual models and the practical applications of place
branding are developing at different speeds so far. A more general
theoretical framework approach underpinning place branding is
due to researchers such as Kotler and Gertner (2002) and
Hankinson (2004, 2007, 2009), among others, and to the attempts
of establishing relationships between literature on place marketing
and branding with classical branding theory and new marketing
paradigms (relational and emerging Service Dominant Logic).
However, most available empirical studies are exploratory (Freire,
2009; Morgan, Pritchard, & Piggott, 2003; Risitano, 2006) or
based on case studies e Pike (2009) identified 33 out of 74 desti-
nation-branding publications focused on case studies between
1998 and 2007 e showing a shortage of empirical studies involved
with the reality of place branding among different stakeholders.
For these reasons, this research is innovative, focussing on the
development of a destination-branding model based on stakeholders’
interests, thereby creating an index that measures destination

0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.07.006
 J.A. García et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661
branding’s success concentrating on similarities and differences that
exist in the presented brand (PB): brand awareness (BA), brand
meaning (BM) and BE among stakeholders. This objective is directly
related to the present literary approach that takes the brand’s role into
account from a wider point of view, connecting not only the visitors to
the destination but also the local people and entrepreneurs.
The paper is divided into seven parts. The concepts of destina-
tion branding and destination image in academic literature are
analyzed in Section 2. The third part deals with the principle of the
service-branding model suggested by Berry (2000) and with the
comparison of destination brands regarding products and services;
a conceptual adaptation of this model to destination branding is
also developed. Sections 4e6 are focused on the study methods’
description and the empirical analysis for Castilla-La Mancha
(CLM), a specific tourist region of Spain. Finally, the last section
introduces the conclusions and discussion, as well as the implica-
tions for Destination Management Organizations (DMOs).
2. Destination branding and destination image
2.1. Destination-brand concept and customer-based brand equity
Destination branding is vital in the current destination
management practice, as broadening tourist opportunities and
travel locations have resulted in increased substitutability and lack
of differentiation amongst some destinations (Pike, 2005). Never-
theless, most researches have been only focused on destination
image (Boo, Busser, & Baloglu, 2009), leading to the need of
establishing the framework and the concept of the destination
brand from the elements of branding theory and other concepts
found in marketing literature (Blain, Levy, & Ritchie, 2005). In this
way, starting from the analysis of the classical branding theory,
Aaker’s (1991, p. 7) definition of branding is one of the most widely
accepted, indicating that ‘a brand is a distinguishing name and/or
symbol (such as a logo, trademark, or package design) intended to
identify the goods or services of either one seller or a group of
sellers, and to differentiate those goods or services from those of
competitors’.
Place marketing literature review reveals different conceptions
to define a destination brand, although the richest view establishes
a separation between two approaches: urban planning and tourism
and vacation marketing (Hankinson, 2004). The first one focuses on
the place product’s nature, its historical development and distinc-
tive features’ marketing implications; the second one deals with
the destination brand’s conceptual field by means of the brand
networks concept, where place branding performs four-main
functions (brands as communicators, brands as perceptual entities,
brands as value enhancers and brands as relationships).
For tourism destinations, Blain et al. (2005) state that the
concept of the visitor experience needs to be incorporated into the
process of branding, because the destination-brand experience has
a positive effect on the value’s one (Boo et al., 2009). Ritchie and
Ritchie (1998, p. 103) have defined a destination brand as ‘a
name, symbol, logo, word mark or other graphic that both identifies
and differentiates the destination; furthermore, it conveys the
promise of a memorable travel experience that is uniquely associ-
ated with the destination; it also serves to consolidate and reinforce
the recollection of pleasurable memories of the destination expe-
rience’. Blain et al. (2005) indicate that effective destination
branding gives visitors an assurance of quality experiences, reduces
visitor search costs, and offers a way for destinations to establish
a unique selling proposition.
On the other hand, in terms of the destination-brand manage-
ment, research has been poor and only exploratory, whereas
consumer’s perspectives may be used to measure destination
647
brand’s efficiency (Blain et al., 2005; Ritchie & Ritchie, 1998). Even
though, some primary studies have emerged in this field, focussing
on customer-based BE (Boo et al., 2009; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007),
and defining it as ‘the differential effect that brand knowledge has
on consumer response to the marketing of the brand’ (Keller, 1993,
p. 2). Customer-based BE occurs when the consumer is familiar
with the brand and holds some favourable, strong, and unique
brand associations in the memory (Kamakura & Russell, 1991).
Furthermore, the emergence of BE has raised the importance of
marketing strategies, attracting managers’ and researchers’ atten-
tion (Keller, 2003). BE is accepted as the overall utility that
customers place in a brand compared to its competitors (de
Chernatony & McDonald, 2003) and the main element of brand
management, leading to an analysis from different perspectives.
Thereby, the destination BE analysis does not only have to consider
the tourist perspective but also to include other factors or indi-
viduals providing value to the brand (e.g. entrepreneurs and local
people).
2.2. Destination image
Nowadays, due to the strong competition among destinations,
creating a positive image of the destination to achieve a competi-
tive advantage is important (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). Although
destination image is a relevant concept for academics and practi-
tioners, the conceptualization of this construct is dispersed (White,
2004), being a common definition this by Crompton (1979, p. 18):
‘the sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions that a person has of
a destination’. Moreover, most researchers agree with the impor-
tance of destination image as a decisive factor in a visitor’ desti-
nation choice (Mayo, 1975).
Tourism marketing experts (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli &
Martín, 2004) consider that destination image is a concept made
up of two components, tangible and intangible. Nevertheless, the
last dimension, affectivity, is not a correct measurement for certain
studies (Echtner & Ritchie, 1991), since many only contemplate the
cognitive component, as it is summarized in Pike’s (2002) study,
where just six of the 142 researches analyzed include the affective
element.
Moreover, a lack of homogeneity, reliability and validity in the
scales used for measuring the destination image is observed, except
for Baloglu and McCleary (1999), Beerli and Martín (2004), and
Echtner and Ritchie (1993), since most of them are the result of
exploratory studies on the identification of important and deter-
mined attributes for the destination image formation (Beerli &
Martín, 2004).
2.3. Stakeholders and destination-brand-building
Freeman (1984) defines a stakeholder as any group or individual
who can affect, or is affected by, the achievement of a corporation’s
purpose. Many authors suggest the usefulness of distinguishing
between primary and secondary stakeholders, depending on their
potential to cooperate with or to be a threat to DMOs (Sheehan &
Ritchie, 2005). Primary stakeholders have a regular interaction
and strategic significance with the brand equity while secondary
stakeholders become important for specific issues (Jones, 2005).
Until recently, most researches on brand-building were focused
on consumer products (Keller, 1993). However, the new stream of
research on service branding, directly linked to the Service Domi-
nant Logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004), is based on the processes of
added value enabling the creation of consumers’ experiences
(Berry, 2000). The brand then plays a broader role, connecting not
only the customers to the company but also the employees and
648 J.A. García et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661
a network of stakeholders, needing to consider their congruence
now, as mentioned by Brodie, Whittome, and Brush (2009).
Nevertheless, the stakeholders’ importance does not only
appear in the literature of service branding. A great deal of litera-
ture exists on the stakeholders’ role and their involvement in
business management (Stoney & Winstanley, 2001), in public
administration (Weible, 2006), in tourism (Robson & Robson, 1996),
in tourism planning (Yasarata, Altinay, Burns, & Okumus, 2009) and
in place branding (Gilmore, 2002; Hankinson 2004; Pike, 2009).
The question now is: who are the stakeholders involved in the
branding process? Gilmore (2002) points out that, in the countries
context, the use of the positioning diamond makes destination-
brand positioning easier, taking its four factors into consideration:
macro-trends, target audiences or stakeholders, competitors, and
core competencies. Regarding stakeholders, Gilmore (2002) states
that the list may include several segments that are not mutually
exclusive: local people (present and future), investors (both locals
and foreigners), employees, students, retired people, visitors
(tourists, both locals and foreigners as well as local day-trippers),
media and opinion leaders, entrepreneurs (travel companies,
travel agents, airlines and transport companies), service industries,
foreign governments and exports purchasers. Subsequently,
Hankinson (2004) suggests a conceptual model where the place’s
success is based on the core brand’s effective expansion (person-
ality, positioning and reality) through effective relationships with
stakeholders, gathering them together into four categories:
consumers (local people, employees of local organizations and
targeted visitors), primary services (services at the heart of the core
brand, for example, retailers, hotels and events), secondary services
(brand infrastructure relationships) and the media (marketing
communication channels e advertising, publicity and public rela-
tions e and organic channels e arts and education).
Little research developing an empirical application has been
found. Most studies are elementary and only involve some stake-
holders, as Morgan et al. (2003), who studied the New Zealand
Brand stakeholders’ role, considering conflicts and relationships
between public and private stakeholders (commercial trade bodies,
regional public sector bodies and airlines). Risitano (2006) analyzes
the tourism stakeholders’ role in the area of Campi Flegrei (Italy),
including exploratory interviews with policy makers and local
entrepreneurs, as well as a pilot survey of Italian and foreign
tourists.
Both researches consider a relatively wide network of stake-
holders although they do not include local people. However, in the
tourist sector, local people may be an important factor when dis-
tinguishing and selling a destination brand, due to a strong rela-
tionship between consumers (visitors) and local people (Freire,
2009). For this reason, Freire’s (2009) research focuses on a single
group of stakeholders (local people) and reveals the dangers
derived from not taking them into account when constructing the
destination-brand identity. In consequence, DMOs should consider
those stakeholders consistent with the guidelines of the strategic
plans of tourism (Sautter & Leisen, 1999) and should consider other
perspectives or services in a wider scope than that related specif-
ically to tourism.
3. Looking for keys to the destination-brand success
3.1. The singular conceptualization of destinations brands
Review of academic marketing literature, in general, and
services literature, in particular, reveals a larger number of models
analyzing the products brands instead of the services brands
(Aaker, 1996a). The services conceptualization, as compared to the
products brands, has also been deeply analyzed (Murray &
Schlacter, 1990), due to its characteristics of intangibility, produc-
tion and consumption at the same time, heterogeneous quality,
perishable character, among other distinctive attributes, (Rathmell,
1966) and experiences for longer periods (de Chernatony & Segal-
Horn, 2001).
The difference among products, services and destination brands
mainly lies in the manner of creating the brand concept, revealing
a common link in brand strategy when it comes to success. Creating
a unique and distinctive concept to identify the brand’s higher
value in relation to the competitors would be the main goal (Kotler
& Gertner, 2002).
Therefore, products and services brands’ analysis would be the
starting point to approach destination brands. Understanding some
internal marketing and corporate culture principles, put into
practice by the business organizations, is essential when trans-
mitting the unique destination-brand equity that promote the
differential character in relation to the strategies of other
competitor destinations (Hankinson, 2009). All these application
aspects in the corporate brands, either of products and/or services,
are applicable to the destination brands, with an additional degree
of complexity. Thus, the main differences among products, services
and destination brands are shown in Table 1, conveying that
destination brands have different characteristics due to their own
nature.
3.2. A suggested model for reference destination branding
Having in mind the differences between products and services
brands and destination brands, the destination-branding model’s
theoretical origin may be found in the conceptual models devel-
oped in other fields.
Berry’s (2000) service-branding model is a reference in services
marketing literature and its adaptation to the tourist destinations
can be interesting for academics and practitioners. It includes six
main components: (1) PB; (2) external brand communications
(publicity and word-of-mouth communications); (3) customer
experience with the organization; (4) BA; (5) BM; and (6) BE (Fig. 1).
Since a specific destination-branding adaptation has been
carried out in this study, it is necessary to accomplish two
considerations on the components of external brand communica-
tions and customers experience with organizations, which indeed
were taken into account by Berry (2000). First, the PB (in the strict
sense of the term, name and logo and their visual presentation) is
intimately linked to the communications about the brand through
advertising, highlighting their difficult division that leads to
a single denomination. Second, customer experience with a desti-
nation could be a key aspect in the success of the destination
branding among visitors. Nevertheless, owing to the stakeholders’
inclusion in the suggested model, it is very difficult to transfer the
tourist experience concept to the cases of local people and entre-
preneurs; their continuous interaction with the tourist destination
unquestionably leads to a high experience with it, although this
experience will be non-touristic and, therefore, it is not a funda-
mental element to measure the destination-branding success.
PB is the brand message (the name and logo and their visual
presentation) that a company conceptualizes and promotes (Berry,
2000). It is one of the vehicles to disseminate the desired branding
message along with advertising (Berry & Seltman, 2007). PB anal-
ysis can be specifically associated with perceptions coming from
unique attributes and with the attitudes generated around the
brand and its publicity. Aaker (1996b) includes some indicators to
evaluate the brand’s emotional benefits, e.g. ‘interesting’. While
Wells (1964) suggests that attributes related to the attractiveness,
such as ‘appealing’, ‘attractive’ and ‘interesting’, could be PB’s core
elements in the destination model.
 J.A. García et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661 649

Table 1
Differences between products, services and destination brands.

Elements/differences Literature review

Tangibility
Unlike products brands, services brands involve tangible and intangible aspects, functional and emotional values, creating an Berry (2000), de Chernatony
emotional connection with the target audience. and Segal-Horn (2001)

Synergy
In services, the synergy between each element resulting from this experience enables the brand to be something more than the de Chernatony
sum of each part. Consequently, the creation of the services brands is a more complex process since it is influenced by a group and Cottam (2006)
of aspects, impressions or perceptions that determine the whole image perceived with the brand.

Internal marketing
The internal marketing is favourable to the creation of value through resources and processes that allow offering a more Brodie et al. (2009),
adequate service to the promises conveyed by the advertisements and commercials, therefore involving the organizing staff. Hankinson (2007)
However, the internal marketing concept in tourist destinations is more complex since multiple organisms outside the entity
responsible for managing the destination brand take part, which makes the communication of values more difficult to the
employees and the involved stakeholders.

Corporate culture
The corporate culture may have a greater influence on the stakeholders through employee behaviour and attitudes than the Hankinson (2007)
corporate communications. In the destination brands a larger number of public and private organizations take part;
consequently, the cultural impact is double, on one hand, the culture of the organizations and, on the other the culture of
destination brands.

Branding
While a new product or service is launched by means of a branding campaign, the destinations are already developed products Hankinson (2007)
that require a re-branding strategy.

Conflicts
The public dimension of the destination brands’ management presents other aspects to take into account, such as the legal Hankinson (2001)
definition of borders -delimitated by the different governments under a unique image- or the appearance of conflicts in the
marketing strategies among local, regional and national organizations.

Coordination
Brand management determines the organizational changes and the brand image must have a strategic vision, interdepartmental Hankinson (2007, 2009)
coordination in connection with the brand is necessary, becoming the key aspect in order to transmit value to the customer.
This coordination is more complicated in the case of the destination brands, unless there exists a synergy between the
company’s brand values and the destination’s values.

BA is the ability to recognize and recall a brand (Aaker, 1991;
Berry, 2000; Berry & Seltman, 2007), reflected in the salience of
the brand in the customers mind (Aaker, 1991), and it is a main
element of a brand’s effect on tourism (Oh, 2000). Two BA extremes
exist, going from brand ignorance to the dominant brand, although
between them, other BA intermediate levels can be identified:
brand recognition, brand recall and top-of-mind. Following Aaker
(1991), in the success of the destination-branding process model
proposed in this research, the conceptualization of this construct
may be accomplished from three levels e recognition, recall of
mind and dominance e that reflect BA’s real components, not
forming this concept to the same degree.
BM refers to the stakeholders’ dominant perceptions of the
brand (Berry, 2000). It is the concept or impression that
immediately comes to their minds in reference to the brand (Berry
& Seltman, 2007), creating attitudes/feelings on them (Aaker, 1991),
and an organization’s reputation or image as well. Keller (2003)
suggests three categories: attributes, benefits and attitudes. Attri-
butes are descriptive elements characterizing a product or service;
benefits are the personal values attached to the product or service
attributes; and attitudes are consumers’ overall evaluations related
to beliefs. He also argues that brand associations need to be strong,
favourable and unique. In literature, brand personality (sincerity or
excitement) and its associations (liking, trust, etc.) are two key
components within this construct (Pappu, Quester, & Cooksey,
2006). Thus, brand associations are ‘anything linked in memory
to a brand’ (Aaker, 1991, p. 109) and a brand needs to be credible to
have trust (Beltranini & Evans, 1985). A brand’s underlying goal is to

Company´s Presented Brand Awareness

Brand

External Brand Brand Equity

Communications

Customer Experience Brand Meaning Primary impact

with Company Secondary impact

Fig. 1. A service-branding model. Source: Berry (2000, p. 130).

650 J.A. García et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661
suggest feelings of trust, confidence, status and exclusivity (Aaker,
1996b; Keller, 1993); perceptions such as believability, sensations,
strong personality and trust are BM indicators in the destination-
branding process’ success.
Aaker (1991) defines BE as the real and/or perceived assets and
liabilities that are associated with the brand. BE is the increased
value added to a product by its brand name (Kamakura & Russell,
1991). From a behavioural point of view, BE is important for
contributing to competitive advantages (Aaker, 1991). According to
Keller (1993), a strong brand with a positive BE has several
advantages (i.e. more powerful communication effectiveness and
higher consumer preference and purchase intentions). On the other
hand, Zeithaml (1988) considers that high perceived quality drives
a consumer to choose the brand rather than other competitors’. The
elements linked to the destination brand in the model of the
destination-branding process’ success are perceived quality, loyalty
and word-of-mouth.
Loyalty is a major component of BE, defined as the commitment
to buy again or recommend a product or service (Oliver, 1997).
Aaker (1991) even says that it is the core of BE and defines it as the
attachment that a customer has to a brand. Brand loyalty is the
main source of customer-based BE (Keller, 2003), and, ‘to the extent
that consumers are loyal to the brand, BE will increase’ (Yoo,
Donthu, & Lee, 2000, p. 197). Perceived quality is also important
for BE (Aaker, 1991) that does not only represent the objective
aspect of quality but the stakeholders’ subjective evaluation
(Zeithaml, 1988). Perceived quality is one of the main dimensions of
BE (Aaker, 1996a; Keller, 2003) especially when it is applied to
a destination (Konecnik & Gartner, 2007). Finally, word-of-mouth is
relevant in services and destinations due to their intangible core
(Berry, 2000).
Once the four dimensions determining the destination brand-
ing’s success (PB, BA, BM, and BE) have been defined, the next step is
to identify their relationships. Berry and Seltman (2007, p. 200)
assert that ‘PB directly impacts on BA. It also impacts on BM.’ but
the PB’s influence on BM is lower than on BA. Alba and Hutchinson
(1987) also analyze how the choice of a brand name and a number of
product experiences, such as advertising, affect the brand recall and
recognition processes. Moreover, Keller (1993) argues that brand
name even influences the favourable, strong and exclusive BM,
suggesting that marketing programs are designed to improve BA.
Yoo et al. (2000) propose a conceptual framework where marketing
actions are related to BE through their dimensions.
Destination image
Congruence
IS
Entrepreneurs
SS NC
OI
Congruence PA
Visitors
Fig. 2. Conceptual model. Relationship between destination image and destination brand. Notes: IS: infrastructure and socioeconomic environment; NC: natural and cultural
resources; PA: pleasant atmosphere; SS: social setting environment; OI: overall image; PB: presented brand; BA: brand awareness; BM; brand meaning; BE: brand equity.
On the other hand, Berry (2000, p. 130) points out that ‘BA and
BM both contribute to BE, but not to the same degree’; specifically,
Berry and Seltman (2007, p. 201) state that ‘BM has the greater
impact’. This applicability comes from Keller’s (1993) conceptuali-
zation, who says that ‘customer-based BE occurs when the
consumer is familiar with the brand and holds some favourable,
strong and unique brand associations in memory’ (Keller, 1993,
p. 1). He advises measuring brand equity through the constituting
dimensions of brand knowledge (BA and the associations con-
nected with the same). In consequence, high levels of BA and
a positive BM should increase the probability of brand preference
and loyalty. Thus, on the one hand, BA is an important antecedent of
customer value (Oh, 2000). On the other hand, building customer-
based BE requires the creation of strong and unique brand associ-
ations (Keller, 1993). The measurement of BE as a result of the
synergy of BA and BM (Berry, 2000) has been applied in several
researches, as those by Davis, Golicic, and Marquardt (2009), where
BE is considered as the result of the influence of both dimensions,
BA and BM.
3.3. A conceptual model: relationship between destination image
and destination brand
This research takes into consideration Berry’s (2000) model
adaptation to destination branding when considering the triple
aspect of the stakeholders (entrepreneurs, local people and visi-
tors). Destination brand’s success can be specifically shaped in
a four-main-construct pyramid: PB, BA, BM, and BE, selected from
Berry (2000) (Fig. 2).
Many researchers discuss the relationship between brand and
image from the destination marketing’s point of view because of
an increasing competition among destinations. On the one hand,
Cai (2002) considers that image formation is not branding and that
image building is a step closer to it. In consequence, image is
relevant in destination brands’ development because both
concepts are linked, although an unclear line can be found
between them, along with conflicting statements about the
causality. On the other hand, some researches consider that the
brand comes first, while others think that image is how a brand is
perceived. There is a mix-up between brand and image in tourism
destination context that impacts into benefits rather than costs
(Tasci & Kozak, 2006). These authors also consider that brand
name and word-of-mouth recommendation are relevant in
Destination brand
Congruence
BE
Local people
Entrepreneurs BM Local people
BA
Congruence
PB
Congruence Visitors Congruence
 J.A. García et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661
choosing destination models, so brands can go together as
a specific identity for a destination.
The conceptual model in this study for analyzing the destination
brand’s success and its relation to the destination image is shown in
Fig. 2.
3.4. The congruence among stakeholders in the success of
destinations
As a way of extending Berry’s (2000) model, which only
considers relationships between the company and the customers,
Webster (2000) argues that brands do not only create value in the
relationships with the final customer but also with the rest of the
stakeholders involved in the marketing network. Their congruence
is crucial to achieve the destination brand’s success, meaning an
increase in the customer-based BE approach towards a new one
that could be called stakeholders-based BE.
According to this viewpoint, Jones (2005) explains how brand
equity is co-created and how to adopt more ways of approaching
BE. He mentions the importance of identifying and understanding
stakeholder value relationships to prioritize them regarding their
contribution to brand value. Regarding BE, this author suggests
a stakeholder-brand equity model considering that the stakeholder
concept offers varied sources of brand value and BE and confirms
that BE comes from multiple stakeholder relationships. He even
presents a figure called ‘daisy-wheel model of BE’, showing stake-
holders’ interconnections.
On the other hand, Bornhorst, Ritchie, and Sheehan (2010) have
already developed a theoretical model meaning that stakeholders
can either assist the coordination to increase success or cause
fragmentation to decrease success. The brand conceptualization
depends on stakeholders, because each of them has a different
expectation. Customers create their brands’ own identity, far from
the real meaning that managers project. In conclusion, brand equity
does not depend on a single relationship, e.g. between the
consumer and the brand (Jones, 2005).
Additionally, some researches have already applied the stakeholder
theory in tourism, analyzing a perspective based on collaboration
relationships. Buhalis (2000) considers that destination branding is
a difficult goal because of the destination’s tangible and intangible
elements and the different stakeholders’ ideals. In this respect, he
suggests collaboration among all of them instead of competition for
the destination’s success. Sheehan and Ritchie (2005) even establish
some clusters for the management strategies with stakeholders
(collaborate, supportive, non-supportive and marginal). They convey
a preference for collaboration and necessary primary voices from local
people in tourism destination management’s success.
Despite the existing literature on destination branding as
a collaborative process, Marzano and Scott (2009) show evidence of
how the most powerful stakeholders try to impose their own
interests in branding process, making use of different ways of
persuasion and authority (competent authority, legitimate
authority, personal authority and induced authority).
In this context, the main activity of DMOs is the ability to
organize stakeholders to create BE. The theory on nation branding
stated by Anholt (2006) suggests that a place branding strategy’s
success is only possible when Public Organizations manage to
coordinate every stakeholder, including those mainly responsible
for formulating the policies, and all of them are joined through the
brand’s effective long-term management. However, the hardest
task within place branding is bringing all the stakeholders together
and getting them to work as a group (van Gelder, 2008). Only a real
chance will exist here that the brand influences on the place’s
image become competitive assets instead of impediments or
liabilities (Anholt, 2006).
651
4. Study methods
4.1. Instruments and pretests
Many indicators to measure constructs related to destination
branding have been found when reviewing literature: PB, BA, BM,
and BE, but most existing scales are designed specifically to
measure them from the consumer’s approach e in marketing
studies e or the visitor’s e in tourism researches. The adoption of
former scales without carrying out an adaptation and pretest may
imply a risk to reach the research’s objectives on the destination-
branding process’ success, focused, not only on the visitors’ study
but also on the rest of stakeholders’.
The starting point for constructing multi-item scales was the
review of existing literature, what led to the conceptualization of
each construct involved in the destination-branding process’
success. Thus, the conceptual delimitation of PB was developed
from the definitions suggested by Aaker (1996b), Berry (2000),
Berry and Seltman (2007), and Wells (1964). For BA, the
proposals of Aaker (1991), Berry (2000), and Keller (1993) were
followed, whose definitions are the most used in studies on
destination branding (Risitano, 2006) and marketing (Berry &
Seltman, 2007; Pappu et al., 2006). The research of Aaker
(1996b), Berry (2000) and Keller (2003) allowed defining the
concept of BM. Finally, for BE, Aaker’s (1991, 1996b), Berry’s (2000),
Konecnik and Gartner’s (2007), and Yoo et al.’s (2000) definitions
were adapted and also used in more recent studies (Pike, 2007). On
the other hand, for the destination image scale, the studies by
Baloglu and McCleary (1999), Echtner and Ritchie (1991), and San
Martín and Rodríguez (2008) were used as references.
Based on these definitions, a wide battery of indicators was
compiled to measure each construct. Nevertheless, in the process of
adaptation, some indicators were added or modified to better
understand and obtain a measurement of the concepts appropriate
to the study’s objectives. A preliminary survey taken to 20 academic
experts who could associate each indicator with its construct,
enabled removal of those indicators with no consensus on their
associated construct. The result of the empirical study carried out
on the destination brand of CLM (CLM Discover & feel) were 13
indicators in destination brand and 19 in destination image
(measured through a six-point Likert scale), from strongly disagree
(0) to strongly agree (5), as in Table 2.
4.2. About CLM Discover & feel
The new brand CLM Discover & feel was launched in 2007 by the
CLM Tourism Promotion Institute after a great effort directed
towards the creation of a destination brand in 2005, on the occasion
of the Fourth Centennial of El Quixote (Appendix 1). The former
brand was focused on the famous literary work Don Quixote de La
Mancha that Cervantes set in a specific geographic area of CLM.
CLM Discover & feel is made up of a hand-heart shaped
symbol and the slogan ‘Discover & feel’ that tries to transmit
additional values, implying value by itself (Aaker, 1991). In this
sense, ‘Discover’ and ‘feel’ are related to feelings and to
a component of action, two desirable characteristics so that the
slogan complements in a suitable way the rest of brand elements
(Aaker, 1991).
The Tourist Official Portal (http://www.visitclm.com) describes
CLM as a Spanish region located in the heart of the Iberian Penin-
sula (79,463 km2), transformed throughout the length of its five
provinces: Albacete, Ciudad Real, Cuenca, Guadalajara and Toledo.
CLM offers a route through its immense cultural heritage, its
spectacular nature sites, its gastronomy, its ancient popular
festivities and its delicate arts and crafts. In 1986 and 1996,
652 J.A. García et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661

Table 2
Proposed constructs: used scale indicators.

Concept/dimension Indicator Literature review

Destination branding
Presented brand (PB) (Appealing) The brand CLM Discover & feel is appealing. Aaker (1996b), Berry (2000),
(Attractive) The brand CLM Discover & feel is attractive. Berry and Seltman (2007), Wells (1964)
(Interesting) The brand CLM Discover & feel is interesting.

Brand awareness (BA) (Dominance) The brand CLM Discover & feel is the only that comes to my mind when I think of Aaker (1991), Berry (2000), Keller (1993)
a tourist destination.
(Recall of mind) The brand CLM Discover & feel is the first that comes to my mind when I think of
a tourist destination.
(Recognition) The brand CLM Discover & feel is easy to recognize among the other destination
brands.

Brand meaning (BM) (Believability) The brand CLM Discover & feel is credible. Aaker (1996b), Berry (2000), Keller (2003)
(Sensations) The brand CLM Discover & feel evokes pleasant sensations of the destination.
(Strong personality) The brand CLM Discover & feel has a strong personality.
(Trust) The brand CLM Discover & feel represents a reliable destination.

Brand equity (BE) (Loyalty) The brand CLM Discover & feel encourages visiting the destination. Aaker (1991, 1996b), Berry (2000),
(Perceived quality) The brand CLM Discover & feel identifies a better-quality destination than Konecnik and Gartner (2007),
other similar ones. Pike (2007), Yoo et al. (2000)
(Word-of-mouth) I will tell other people the positive aspects of the brand CLM Discover & feel.

Destination image
Infrastructure and Good opportunities for recreation activities Baloglu and McCleary (1999),
socioeconomic Good shopping facilities Beerli and Martín (2004),
environment (IS) High quality of accommodation Echtner and Ritchie (1991),
High quality of infrastructure San Martín and Rodríguez (2008)
Low prices of tourism services
Good value for money [intro]
Natural and cultural Beautiful landscapes
resources (NC) Fascinating architecture
Interesting cultural attractions
Unusual ways of life and customs
Interesting cultural attractions [intro]
Pleasant atmosphere Relaxing atmosphere/peaceful place
(PA) It is slightly crowded
Place to rest [intro]
Social setting High level of personal safety
environment (SS) High level of cleanliness
Unpolluted environment [intro]
Overall image (OI) The image that I have of this destination is as good or even better than other similar destinations
Overall destination image is very positive

respectively, Toledo and Cuenca were declared World Heritage
Cities by UNESCO. There are five Archaeology Parks in CLM with
archaeological remains from the Iron Age, the Bronze Age and the
Middle Ages. Moreover, 320,000 ha of nature sites make CLM one of
the territories in Europe with a greater number of Natural Reserves
(5), National Parks (2), Strict Nature Reserves (13) and micro-
reserves (6). The wine tourism industry is also relevant, since
CLM represents 50% of the wine cultivation area in Spain, 17.8% in
Europe and 7.6% in the world, according to the data published by
the Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs
(http://www.marm.es).
4.3. Data collection
The data collection on the three groups of stakeholders (entre-
preneurs, local people and visitors) was carried out using different
techniques and sampling procedures, with a sampling distribution
relatively similar to the population profile (Table 3).
First of all, the information on the first group of stakeholders was
collected by means of 131 telephone interviews with entrepreneurs
located in CLM (under the supposition of a finite population:
sampling error ¼ 8.6%, confidence level ¼ 95.5%, p ¼ q ¼ 0.5). The
Establishments Register drawn-up by the Regional Government in
December 2008 showed 5887 tourist companies in CLM, being the
sample selected by means of stratified sampling and taking into
account their tourist typology. The survey was carried out in October
of 2009.
Second, the information about the local people comes from
548 personal interviews carried out in the region (sampling
error ¼ 4.3%, confidence level ¼ 95.5%, p ¼ q ¼ 0.5). The Official
Figures of the Spanish National Statistics Institute (SNSI) (http://
www.ine.es) show that the total population in CLM consisted of
2,043,100 inhabitants in January of 2008 and the most populated
city has only 166,909 inhabitants registered. CLM is a region with
a reduced population density and high population dispersion.
This meant a random route sampling plan designed in 35 cities,
towns and villages, developing the survey in March and April of
2009.
Third, the information about visitors comes from 514 personal
interviews carried out on national and international visitors
found in the region during the months of March and April of
2009 (under supposition of probability sampling, sampling
error ¼ 4.4%, confidence level ¼ 95.5%, p ¼ q ¼ 0.5). A two-stage
sampling plan was designed: quota sampling when distributing
the survey among the 29 most visited tourist points (according to
the data of Collective Accommodation Occupancy Survey
compiled by the SNSI (http://www.ine.es) and the Register of
Visits of the Tourist Information Offices located in the region),
and convenience sampling when selecting the units to be
interviewed.
 J.A. García et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661 653

Table 3 three empirical concepts (indicator intercorrelation, indicator rela-

Profile of the entrepreneurs, local people and visitors in CLM. Population versus tionships with construct antecedents and consequences, and
sample.
measurement error and collinearity).
Stakeholder/variable Population Sample Regarding the constructs related to brand destination (PB, BA,
(%) (%) BM, and BE), when evaluating the above considerations, BA has
Entrepreneurs been considered in relation to its indicators in a formative way,
Tourist Travel agency 6.4 6.1
since it is the only construct clearly complying with the three
typology (a) Camping 0.6 0.8
Rural B&B 23.8 23.7 theoretical formative conditions. First, BA has been conceptualized
Hostel 11.8 11.5 following Aaker’s (1991) proposal, including several awareness
Hotel 5.2 5.3 levels: recognition, recall, top-of-mind and dominance, being their
Restaurant 50.7 50.4 combination what forms the BA existence. Second, variation in the
Other typology 1.5 2.3
indicator measures causes variation in the construct, but it is not
Respondent President n.a. 15.3 the same in the other way, what implies that having a higher BA
profile General manager n.a. 42.7
does not mean that the brand will necessarily be in the top-of-mind
Manager n.a. 8.4
Assistant manager n.a. 33.6 or will be the dominant one, but that when the brand is in the top-
of-mind or is the dominant brand, it will definitely have a higher
Local people BA. Third, the BA indicators are not interchangeable, what means
Sex (b) Men 50.6 51.1 that removing the indicator of dominance can change the
Women 49.4 48.9
conceptual domain of BA. The fact that the indicators are formative
Age (b) Under 25 27.6 24.1 is not totally clear in the rest of constructs (PB, BA and BE), since
25e34 16.5 19.3 only some of the presented conditions are achieved. Being cautious,
35e44 16.2 19.2
these three constructs are better considered as reflective.
45e54 12.8 15.7
55e64 9.3 8.9
Over 64 17.6 12.8 5.2. Partial least squares path modelling
Marital Single 42.1 38.7
status (c) Married/living as a couple 49.8 50.9 After taking all these decisions about the constructs’ formative
Separated/divorced 1.5 4.0 or reflective character, the measurement instrument has been
Widower 6.6 6.4 validated by the partial least squares (PLS), technique especially
Education Primary/without studies 39.3 35.2 appropriate to incorporate formative constructs (Chin, 1998a,
level (d) Secondary/high school 44.1 36.7 1998b). It is much more flexible, allowing both reflective and
University 16.6 28.1 formative constructs within its framework (Venaik, Midgley, &
Occupation Inactive 42.9 40.3 Devinney, 2004), but it is not specifically designed for the confir-
(d) Self-employed 10.7 8.9 matory factor analysis (CFA). Jarvis, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff
Employee/civil servant 39.7 40.0 (2003) point out that the models incorporating formative
Unemployed 6.6 8.6
Other occupation 0.1 2.2
constructs have to be estimated by fitting multiple indicators and
multiple causes (MIMIC) models, as long as three clear possibilities
Annual family Under 19,000 V 33.3 25.4
exist: (1) the formative construct has at the same time at least two
income (e) 14,000e19,000 V 17.1 15.3
19,000e25,000 V 13.0 18.3 reflective indicators; (2) it loads over at least two constructs
25,000e35,000 V 17.5 23.2 defined in a reflective way; or (3) a combination of both. In this
Over 35,000 V 19.1 17.8 research, none of these possibilities were viable, because the global
reflective indicators for BA were not available and, in the adaptation
Visitors
to the destination-branding model of Berry (2000), there only
Length Day-tripper n.a. 31.7
of the stay Tourist n.a. 68.3
existed a construct defined in a reflective way (BE) over which BA
loads. This reason and the importance of carrying out a BA external
Place of Spain 84.7 79.7
validation e assessing nomological validity by using a structural
residence (f) Other country 15.3 20.3
linkage with another construct (Barroso et al., 2006; Chin, 1998a;
Notes: the population dates were obtained from the following sources: (a) Estab- Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001) e justified the use of PLS.
lishments Register, Regional Government of CLM. December 2008; (b) Official
Population Figures, SNSI. January 2008; (c) Population and Housing Census, SNSI.
The model has been estimated by SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle, Wende, &
2001; (d) Economically Active Population Survey, SNSI. 2008; (e) Living Conditions Will, 2005) and the parameters significance has been obtained by
Survey, SNSI. 2008; (f) Register of Visits, Tourist Information Offices in CLM. 2008; bootstrapping (500 sub-samples were randomly generated).
n.a.: not available.
5.3. Psychometric properties of the measurement instrument for
destination brand
5. Evaluation of the measurement model for destination
brand In order to evaluate the measurement instrument, a distinction
between formative and reflective constructs has been drawn-up
5.1. Formative versus reflective measurement models (Table 4).
Concerning the reflective constructs, the calculated indicators
From Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer (2001), many researches show excellent reliability levels (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994):
have appeared concerning the importance of determining the Cronbach’s alpha (a) (Cronbach, 1951) over 0.7, and composite
constructs’ reflective or formative character (Barroso, Cepeda, & reliability (CR) (Werts, Linn, & Jöreskog, 1974) higher than the 0.9,
Roldán, 2006). Coltman, Devinney, Midgley, and Venaik (2008) a recommended value in more advanced stages of research. The
summarize the existing researches and compile three theoretical loadings of each indicator in relation to its construct are signifi-
considerations (nature of construct, direction of causality, and cantly different from zero and higher than 0.6 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).
characteristics of indicators used to measure the construct) and The average variance extracted (AVE) values (Fornell & Larcker,
654 J.A. García et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661

Table 4
Measurement model. Assessing the instrument.

Construct/indicator Loading Weight VIF a CR AVE SC

PB BA BM BE
PB
Appealing 0.911*** 0.874 0.922 0.799 1.000 0.640 0.608 0.593
Attractive 0.896***
Interesting 0.874***

BA
Dominance 0.558*** 1.235 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.640 1.000 0.518 0.578
Recall of mind 0.474*** 1.348
Recognition 0.223*** 1.345

BM
Believability 0.906*** 0.906 0.935 0.782 0.608 0.518 1.000 0.636
Sensations 0.831***
Strong personality 0.883***
Trust 0.913***

BE
Loyalty 0.895*** 0.847 0.907 0.765 0.593 0.578 0.636 1.000
Perceived quality 0.856***
Word-of-mouth 0.873***

Notes: VIF: variance inflation factor; a: Cronbach’s alpha; CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted; SC: squared correlation; ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; n.a.: not
applicable.

1981) are over 0.5, guaranteeing the measurement reflective
model’s convergent validity (Götz, Liehr-Gobbers, & Krafft, 2010).
The AVE for each construct has to be higher than the square of the
correlations between each pair of constructs to assess discriminant
validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Moreover, SmartPLS 2.0 provides
an indicator’s cross-loadings with every construct, showing that no
indicator has higher loadings over another different construct in
association (Götz et al., 2010). Both criteria have indicated sufficient
discriminant validity.
For the formative construct, the weights indicate each indica-
tor’s relative importance in the BA formation, but the traditional
reliability and validity assessments are not applicable (Bollen,
1989). It is true that in the BA formation the dominance indica-
tor’s weight (weight ¼ 0.558) is much higher than the indicator
measuring recognition (weight ¼ 0.223), due to its theoretical
sense for a formative construct. The formative indicators should
also be tested for collinearity (Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009).
As shown in Table 4, all variance inflation factors (VIF) are well
below the threshold of 10, the normal heuristic value for the point
at which some concerns of collinearity start to emerge. Even
considering the threshold for formative measures of 3.3 (Petter,
Straub, & Rai, 2007), the results suggest no multicollinearity in
the indicators creating BA.
Additionally, to test nomological validity, Berry’s (2000) model
has been used and adapted to the destination branding for evalu-
ating whether the constructs have meaningful coherent relation-
ships with the theory. This aspect is critical for the BA formative
construct, as evaluating its internal consistency is not possible.
Therefore, a final approach to validation, focussing on nomological
aspects, involves linking BA to other antecedents and/or conse-
quences with which it would be expected to be linked (Barroso
et al., 2006; Chin, 1998a; Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001).
Berry (2000, p. 130) points out that ‘BA and BM both contribute to
BE [.], but not to the same degree’; specifically, Berry and Seltman
(2007, p. 201) state that ‘BM has the greater impact. A customer
who is aware of a brand but doesn’t like it will seek alternatives’. In
this research’s model, BM (path coefficient ¼ 0.652) has a greater
impact over BE than BA (path coefficient ¼ 0.295), coherent with
the previous theory. Regarding PB, Berry and Seltman (2007, p. 200)
assert that ‘PB directly impacts BA [.]. It also impacts BM.’ but
the PB’s influence on BM is lower than on BA. Here the path
coefficients confirm that PB impacts BA more considerably than BM
(Fig. 3). These relationships with the antecedents/consequences of
BA’s construct are coherent with the theory and guarantee its
nomological validity.
Finally, Chin (1998b) recommends that the structural model in
PLS is evaluated based on the coefficient of determination (R2) and
the StoneeGeisser criterion (Q2) (Geisser, 1974, 1975; Stone, 1974).
The R2 for endogenous constructs amply exceed the threshold of
10% (Falk & Miller, 1992) whereas the Q2 for endogenous constructs
with a reflective measurement model, obtained through blind-
folding, are higher than 0 (Chin, 1998b), achieving the value of 0.599
in the case of BE (Fig. 3). These results guarantee that the structural
model has predictive relevance.
6. Data analysis and findings
6.1. Analysis procedures
The present study wants to develop a methodology that allows
measuring the destination branding’s success/failure based on the
congruences/differences existing in PB, BA, BM, and BE among the
different stakeholders in CLM, although this is not enough. The
various constructs integrating the pyramid of destination brand’s
success must be as high as possible and there must be a certain
balance among them, since a well-known destination brand
meaning nothing to anybody will be unlikely to have brand value.
Considering the three stakeholders, three diamonds have been
constructed to measure the four destination-brand constructs.
Thus, consecutive vertices are constructs that appear directly
interrelated in Berry’s (2000) model, whereas non-consecutive
vertices correspond to the ones with no interrelation of direct
causality (Fig. 4). The sum of the area of the three diamonds is
reflected in an index called Success Index of Triple-Diamonds (SITD).
From some average scores obtained in each construct by the
different stakeholders, the value of SITD for a destination brand can
be computed as:
3 
X 
ðBMs þ BAs ÞðBEs þ PBs Þ
SITD ¼ (1)
s¼1
2
where s refers to the different groups of stakeholders, s ¼ 1, 2, 3.
 J.A. García et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661 655

BM
2
R =0.606
2
0.779*** Q =0.430 0.652***

PB BE
2
R =0.789
2
Q =0.599

BA
0.809*** 2
R =0.654 0.295***
2
Q =n.a.

Fig. 3. Structural model. Testing nomological validity and predictive relevance. Notes: R2: coefficient of determination; Q2: StoneeGeisser criterion; ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; n.a.: not
applicable.

Each construct is measured on a 0e5 scale, meaning that the
maximum value reached by SITD is 150, and that it would be
obtained for an ideal destination brand with average scores of 5 in
the four constructs and for the three stakeholders [((10  10)/2) 
3]. The minimum value of the index is 0:
0  SITD  150
SITD ¼ 1505csðBMs ¼ BAs ¼ BEs ¼ PBs ¼ 5Þ
SITD ¼ 05cs½ðBMs ¼ BAs ¼ 0ÞWðBEs ¼ PBs ¼ 0Þ
SITD has five main properties, making it interesting for evalu-
ating a destination brand’s success: (1) SITD is based on different
stakeholders’ perceptions more suitable from a perspective where
the score plays a broader role, connecting visitors, local people and
entrepreneurs to the destination; (2) SITD rewards destination
brands with balances among the four constructs while punishing
those with imbalances or gaps between the pairs (BE þ PB) and
(BM þ BA). This is due to constructs’ graphical location, based on
the causal relations shown in Berry (2000) and on the value of
SITD’s calculation from the surface areas; (3) SITD rewards first-
class destination brands, since it is expressed in squared units;
(4) SITD is an enclosed index, with a maximum (150) and
a minimum (0), which allows analyzing the destination brand’s
(2) temporary evolution, calculating the deviations with regard to an
objective, and establishing comparisons among different destina-
tion brands; and (5) SITD can be interpreted individually for each of
the three stakeholders, Success Index of One-Diamond (SIOD), with
a maximum of 50 and a minimum of 0, allowing the analysis of
strengths and weaknesses in the destination-branding process.
The differences in the SIOD vertices among the various stake-
holders have been studied by: (1) the one-way analysis of variance
procedure (ANOVA) when the homogeneous variance assumption
is correct; or (2) the Welch test (Welch, 1951) when the variances
are heterogeneous. PB, BA, BM, and BE are the dependent variables
and the stakeholder is used as the independent variable, including
three categories: entrepreneurs, local people, and visitors. The

BE
5

BM 0 BA

Maximum SITD (BMs = BAs = BEs = PBs = 5)

Minimum SITD (BMs = BAs = 0)

Minimum SITD (BEs = PBs = 0)

PB
Minimum SITD (BMs = BAs = BEs = PBs = 0)

Fig. 4. Variation range of SITD.

656 J.A. García et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661

BE
4.5
4
3.5
SIODE =27.774
3
2.5 SIODL =13.880
2
SIODV =12.615
BM 1.5 BA

Entrepreneurs

Local people
PB
Visitors

Fig. 5. SITD for CLM Discover & feel.

stakeholders’ sample sizes are not equal and the Welch procedure
is more powerful than ANOVA when the variances are heteroge-
neous (Kohr & Games, 1974). The Levene test (Levene, 1960) has
been used to examine homogeneity of variances. The Scheffe test
(Scheffé, 1953, 1959), for equal variances, and the Tamhane T2 test
(Tamhane, 1979), for unequal variances, have been used as post hoc
comparison tests.
Finally, once those stakeholders contributing less to the brand
destination’s success were identified, non-parametric Spearman
correlations were carried out between the SIOD (such as an index of
the branding process’ success) and the dimensions forming the
destination image. The scales used for measuring the destination
image were checked to make sure that they fulfilled all the
requirements of reliability and validity but the study of their
psychometric properties are not reported here as they are not
a main objective.
6.2. Results
The indicators’ loading/weight (appearing in Table 4) have
been used to obtain the weighted average scores for the desti-
nation-brand constructs (PB, BA, BM, and BE). The average scores
of the four dimensions of destination image infrastructure and
socioeconomic environment (IS), natural and cultural resources
(NC), pleasant atmosphere (PA), social setting environment (SS))
and the overall image (OI) were obtained following the same
procedure.
In order to evaluate the success/failure of the brand CLM
Discover & feel, the SITD value has been calculated from the
expression (1) in Section 6.1. According to this expression, the
brand CLM Discover & feel would have a score of 54.269 points out
of 150, far from considering it a first-class brand. Nonetheless, this
is quite logical for such a young brand, created in the year 2007.
 
ð3:828 þ 3:400Þð3:890 þ 3:795Þ
SITDCLM ¼
2
 
ð2:548 þ 2:760Þð2:388 þ 2:842Þ
þ
2
 
ð2:434 þ 2:606Þð2:254 þ 2:752Þ
þ
2
¼ 27:774 þ 13:880 þ 12:615 ¼ 54:269
The graphical representation of the SIOD for CLM Discover & feel
(Fig. 5), carried out from the index created for each group of
stakeholders, allows demonstrating that the greatest contribution
to the success of this brand corresponds to entrepreneurs (27.774
points out of 50) while its main weak points lie on local people
(13.880 points out of 50) and visitors (12.615 points out of 50). SITD
is a useful measuring instrument to analyze imbalances among
destination-brand constructs. In the case of entrepreneurs, the gap
existing between BA and the rest of the components generating
brand success is reflected in a SIOD of 27.774 points, whereas, if just
half a point more had been achieved in the most imbalanced
dimension (to the extent of recording an average of 3.9 in BA),
a SIOD of 29.695 points would have been obtained.
Considering SIOD’s four vertices separately, the ANOVA or Welch
test will allow contrasting the null hypothesis that averages of PB,

Table 5
Comparing the SIOD vertices.

Construct ME (SD) ML (SD) MV (SD) Levene test ANOVA/Welch test Scheffe test/Tamhane T2 test

F p F p p < 0.01 p < 0.05

PB 3.795 (0.957) 2.842 (0.979) 2.752 (1.029) 0.760 0.468 59.145 0.000 E > L, V
BA 3.400 (1.121) 2.760 (0.906) 2.606 (0.880) 7.964 0.000 28.769 (a) 0.000 E > L, V L>V
BM 3.828 (0.880) 2.548 (0.989) 2.434 (1.019) 2.620 0.073 107.646 0.000 E > L, V
BE 3.890 (0.793) 2.388 (1.029) 2.254 (1.026) 8.206 0.000 213.982 (a) 0.000 E > L, V

Notes: M: mean; SD: standard deviation; (a) asymptotically F distributed for Welch test; E: entrepreneurs; L: local people; V: visitors.
 J.A. García et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661
Table 6
Comparing destination image constructs and non-parametric correlations with SIOD.
Construct ML (SD) MV (SD)
IS 3.003 (0.629) 3.044 (0.582)
NC 3.451 (0.607) 3.576 (0.566)
PA 3.649 (0.642) 3.060 (0.875)
SS 3.306 (0.683) 3.515 (0.623)
OI 3.060 (0.875) 3.246 (0.786)
Notes: M: mean; SD: standard deviation; L: local people; V: visitors; ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05.
BA, BM, and BE are equal for local people, entrepreneurs and visi-
tors. Table 5 presents the different average scores of the four
dimensions for the three stakeholders considered (p < 0.01). Post
hoc comparison tests (Scheffe or Tamhane T2 tests) show signifi-
cant differences between entrepreneurs and the other two stake-
holders (p < 0.01), namely PB, BA, BM, and BE are higher for
entrepreneurs than for local people and visitors. The only signifi-
cant difference between local people and visitors is in BA (p < 0.05)
(Table 5).
The main weak points of this brand are found in local people and
visitors. Considering the SIOD of both stakeholders, non-parametric
correlations with the destination image constructs were calculated
(IS, NC, PA, SS, and OI) (Table 6). Every correlation is significantly
different than zero, although some particularities exist in both
groups. Concerning local people, the SIOD has stronger correlations
with OI (rho ¼ 0.473) and IS (rho ¼ 0.449), resulting in 0.37 in the
case of NC. For visitors, the highest correlation is found with IS
(rho ¼ 0.437), while the correlations of the SIOD with OI
(rho ¼ 0.376) and NC (rho ¼ 0.359) are located in a second level of
importance.
Additionally, using ANOVA the average scores of NC, SS, and OI
are significantly higher for visitors than for local people (p < 0.01),
and the opposite occurs with PA (p < 0.05) while, in the case of IS,
there are no significant differences between local people and
visitors.
7. Conclusions and discussion
This article develops a destination-branding model based on
three groups of stakeholders and applies it to a region of Spain.
Their perceptions and congruence in elaborating an index and
a methodology useful for measuring the brand’s success have been
taken into account. This study is also useful for the practitioners on
destination branding by incorporating the stakeholders’ role,
because they have not received enough attention in management
(Hankinson, 2004). In addition, the results obtained are consistent
with academic literature, since the conclusions of previous studies
show the importance of stakeholders in destination brand’s success
(Hankinson, 2004, 2007, 2009; Risitano, 2006).
These results from Success Index of Triple-Diamonds (SITD) lead
to the conclusion that: (1) the brand analyzed has major gaps,
mainly, in entrepreneurs’ and visitors’ perceptions; and (2) the
main weak points in the destination-branding strategy are found
in local people and visitors, obtaining very low scores in each of
their Success Index of One-Diamond (SIOD). Furthermore, local
people act as a brake on visitors’ greater success of the brand,
since the area for the diamond of visitors is inside the vertices of
the local people diamond (PB, BA, BM, and BE). The analysis of
these constructs or diamond vertices reveals that the scores of PB,
BA, BM and BE for entrepreneurs are significantly higher than the
scores for visitors and local people. This fact demonstrates that, in
order to achieve the success of the brand CLM Discover & feel, it is
657
Levene test ANOVA Spearman rho
F p F p SIODL SIODV
0.942 0.332 1.191 0.275 0.449*** 0.437***
1.017 0.313 11.983 0.001 0.370*** 0.359***
2.583 0.108 5.720 0.017 0.095** 0.160***
0.028 0.868 27.193 0.000 0.193*** 0.246***
3.479 0.062 13.213 0.000 0.473*** 0.376***
necessary to work coordinately on PB, BA, BM and BE with visitors
and local people.
From a theoretical point of view, this article contributes to
current literature, for it suggests that the analysis of destination
branding’s success cannot only be based on the visitor’s point of
view of the brand value (customer-based BE), but it must be set
within a broader conceptual framework that comprises visitors,
local people and entrepreneurs (Pike, 2005). In the case of desti-
nation brands, a conceptualization of the brand value based on the
stakeholders (stakeholders-based BE) is more suitable than the
usual configuration based only on the visitor (customer-based BE).
There are three reasons that justify this theoretical perspective
based on stakeholders. First, entrepreneurs-based BE is a necessary
condition for the destination brand’s success among visitors. When
the corporative culture values differ from the destination brand’s
that DMOs wish to transmit, entrepreneurs will transmit their own
during their contact with visitors (Hankinson, 2007). Second, in line
with Freire (2009), local people have a double impact (as members
of the local society, and as workers within the tourist industry),
highlighting the importance of considering resident-based BE.
Third, undoubtedly the main aim of any destination-brand strategy
must be directed towards the achievement of visitors worth
(customer-based BE).
From a practical point of view, the implications of this study for
DMOs are clear. Traditional strategies of some DMOs focussing their
brand management efforts on a fast projection towards visitors, in
search of their main goal, could become counterproductive. Visi-
tors’ expectations concerning the destination and the existence of
imbalances with the PB, BA, BM, and BE of entrepreneurs and local
people can act as elements inhibiting visitors brand value. This
study suggests that DMOs must develop a two-stage strategy,
focussing firstly on the stakeholders closest to the destination, both
from the domain of destination management (entrepreneurs) and
of society and employment (local people), and secondly on visitors.
Summarizing, brand value’s creation among visitors is actually the
final aim, whereas for local people and entrepreneurs it is an
intermediate goal and a necessary condition for destination-
branding strategy’s success. From the strategy implementation, the
key aspects on which DMOs have to work are the involvement and
education of local people and the creation of co-branding agree-
ments with entrepreneurs.
Therefore, DMOs could know the developed actions’ effective-
ness on the destination brands. For this, establishing reference
standards would be recommendable and this study specifically
suggests three patterns: (1) SITD values of the competing destina-
tion brands, which would allow analyzing the success and posi-
tioning of the different brands and determine the main strengths
and weaknesses of each one; (2) SITD value over time, measured by
periodical surveys amongst entrepreneurs, local people and visitors.
The aim would be to compare the effects of the different actions
carried out on these three groups and, in this manner, analyze if the
brand is weaker or stronger, whether re-launching of the brand is
658 J.A. García et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661
necessary and which stakeholders work needs to be done with, etc.;
and (3) establishment of a short and long-term objective value,
based on the analysis of competing destination-brand scores, of the
evolution of the SITD values and the desired impact of advertising or
similar. DMOs should establish a reference value for each group so
that possible deviations could be analyzed and they should also
focus on those groups having the lowest scores (local people and
visitors), but bearing in mind the two-stage strategy set forth (first:
entrepreneurs and local people, and second: visitors).
As mentioned in the second reference value, it would be
advisable to analyze the SITD value from time to time because the
destination brands become stronger or weaker through time, as it
also happens with products or services; if some weaknesses were
observed in the SITD analysis, the ideal solution would be to invest
in the aspects requiring to strengthen, and to act on the groups
giving the lowest value to the destination brand. This alternative
would avoid drastic brand changes, thus optimizing advertising
efforts to launch a new brand.
Specific recommendations for each component and directed to
each brand equity group are also to be considered, having them all
a clear objective: orienting the DMOs in their brand destination
management, bearing in mind their interrelation with the desti-
nation image. These actions’ results could be analyzed using the
SITD and it would allow the management organizations in
analyzing the evolution of the strong and weak points for each
component and stakeholder.
Concerning PB, it is clear that a destination-brand image
requires great advertising efforts and costly public relations
campaigns in addition to a graphic design (Anholt, 2008). When the
correlations between the National Brand Index and advertising
expenses for the years 2005e2007 were analyzed, no relationship
between the changes in equity of the national brand and the
marketing effort were observed. Thus, DMOs should contemplate
a strategy of participation or collaboration with the entrepreneurs
and local people, when they launch a destination brand, such as in
promotional campaigns or communication about new tourist
products. In this way, stakeholders would feel a part of the brand
that encompasses its tourist destinations. This collaboration would
give way to a link by entrepreneurs and local people with the
destination brand, transmitting the attractiveness and interesting
characteristics to the visitors.
Regarding BA, the recommended actions would be oriented
towards recognition of the brand by the three groups: identifying
the destination brand with tourist establishments (hotels, rural
lodgings, restaurants, museums, theatres, etc.), parking facilities for
visitors, train stations, buses, taxis or airports, brochures and tourist
maps, recreational areas or cultural and nature routes, would
facilitate association of the destination brand to the destination.
The collaboration of the entrepreneurs is again required, as well as
their companies’ and local people’s that should worry about the
destination brand receiving adequate exposure in the places
previously defined. Considering that out of the 1500 advertising
impacts that a person is exposed to during a day, only 7 are
retained, this confirms the need to visualize the destination brand
in every place where a visitor may pass during their tourist travels.
In third place, BM actions are oriented towards the destination
brand’s credibility and personality. DMOs should work together in
two aspects: the values that destination brand transmits by
means of publicity slogans and the destination’s real image. In the
specific case of CLM Discover & feel, the conveyed values are
findings, invention and mystery (discover), along with emotion,
experience, passion (feel), concepts to be projected by the iden-
tified image of the Spanish region. In this way, the SITD analysis
over a period of time, would permit confirming if the destination
brand and its slogan reflect the reality of the region. It would be
advisable to carry out theatrical actions at tourist points to
simulate, in a creative manner, the values that identify and define
the tourist destination’s personality. Again, collaboration between
entrepreneurs and local people is vital for transmitting these
values to visitors.
DMOs have to work on the three key aspects of BE: loyalty,
perceived quality and word-of-mouth. An adequate example of
motivating destination loyalty could be lowering the prices of
tourist establishments for loyal customers, or carrying out draw-
ings or gift certificates for accommodations, health treatments or
free routes. Entrepreneurs’ collaboration (hotels, restaurants, spas,
cultural routes, etc) is highly necessary. These agreements would
allow promoting different tourist options and, consequently,
increasing the amount of money spent at the destination, as well
as guaranteeing its loyalty. The actions related to perceived quality
should be oriented towards linking the destination brand with
a tourism quality seal of guarantee. This strategy could be devel-
oped along with brand promotion in the different establishments
and tourist places proposed in BA. Entrepreneurs, as managers of
tourist companies, and local people, as active workers, would play
a key role in the visitors’ perceived quality and they are the main
contribution to the destination-brand seal of guarantee. The result
of all the above-mentioned actions would affect another key
component of BE: word-of-mouth. If the visitor has enjoyed
a good experience in a tourist destination, i.e. in each and every of
the tourist points identified under the destination brand, he would
recommend the visit to friends and family and, therefore,
contribute to the destination brand’s creation.
When interpreting the results of this study, a number of limita-
tions must be considered. First, it is only focused on a regional
destination brand, limitation that can become a future line of
research. The application of the methodology in this article applied
to several destination brands, in different spheres (countries,
regions or cities) and with different destination-branding strategies,
would make an invaluable comparative analysis when identifying
the best branding practices. Second, this research identifies the
necessity of developing education strategies and local people’s
implication and creating co-branding agreements, but it does not
enable indicating the most suitable ways for the implementation of
these strategies. In this sense, it would be interesting to evaluate
some initiatives’ efficiency, carried out by DMOs heading co-
branding projects through tourist services (wineries, spas, rural
B&Bs, etc.) to encourage entrepreneurs’ sense of membership, since
they work in a given sector of the economy and instil not only an
identity of a common brand but also consistent with the DMOs’ one.
Finally, this study presents empirical evidences of the existence
of imbalances or conflicts among the different stakeholders in the
destination-branding process. This leads to future studies analyzing
those cases where the most powerful stakeholders try to impose
their interests in the destination-branding process (Marzano &
Scott, 2009) to answer two fundamental questions: (1) is it
appropriate that the most powerful stakeholders define the
strategy on the basis of their own interests to avoid boycott from
the destination brand?; and (2) how to overcome the divergences
or tensions existing among the DMOs with authority in different
public spheres (countries, regions or cities)? These answers are key
aspects to keep on advancing in the management of destination
brands.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Tourism Promotion Institute
of the Spanish Regional Government of Castilla-La Mancha for
financially supporting this research under Contracts UCTR070289
and UCTR090050.
 J.A. García et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661 659

Appendix 1

Destination brands of CLM and advertising stimuli.

660 J.A. García et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661

References
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism
Management, 21(1), 97e116.
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: Free Press.
Cai, L. A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism
Aaker, D. A. (1996a). Building strong brands. New York: Free Press.
Research, 29(3), 720e742.
Aaker, D. A. (1996b). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. Cal-
Chin, W. W. (1998a). Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling. MIS
ifornia Management Review, 38(3), 102e120.
Quarterly, 22(1), 7e16.
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of
Chin, W. W. (1998b). The partial least squares approach for structural equation
Consumer Research, 13(4), 411e454.
modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp.
Anholt, S. (2006). Public diplomacy and place branding: where’s the link? Place
295e336). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Branding, 2(4), 271e275.
Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus
Anholt, S. (2008). Place branding: is it marketing, or isn’t it? Place Branding and
reflective measurement models: two applications of formative measurement.
Public Diplomacy, 4(1), 1e6.
Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250e1262.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation desti-
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74e94.
nation and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation.
Travel Research, 17(4), 18e23.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868e897.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psycho-
Barroso, C., Cepeda, G., & Roldán, J. L. (2006). Constructos latentes y agregados en la
metrika, 16(3), 297e334.
economía de la empresa. In AEDEM. (Ed.), Proceedings of the XX Congreso Anual
Davis, D. F., Golicic, S. L., & Marquardt, A. (2009). Measuring brand equity for
de la Asociación Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa (pp. 979e993).
logistics services. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 20(2),
Palma de Mallorca: Asociación Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa.
201e212.
Beerli, A., & Martín, J. D. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of
de Chernatony, L., & Cottam, S. (2006). Internal brand factors driving successful
Tourism Research, 31(3), 657e681.
financial services brands. European Journal of Marketing, 40(5e6), 611e633.
Beltranini, R. F., & Evans, K. R. (1985). Perceived believability of research results
de Chernatony, L., & McDonald, M. (2003). Creating powerful brands in consumer
information in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 14(3), 18e31.
service and industrial markets. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of
de Chernatony, L., & Segal-Horn, S. (2001). Building on services’ characteristics to
Marketing Science, 28(1), 128e137.
develop successful services brands. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(7e8),
Berry, L. L., & Seltman, K. D. (2007). Building a strong services brand: lessons from
645e669.
Mayo Clinic. Business Horizons, 50(3), 199e209.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative
Blain, C., Levy, S. E., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). Destination branding: insights and
indicators: an alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research,
practices from destination management organizations. Journal of Travel
38(2), 269e277.
Research, 43(4), 328e338.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). The meaning and measurement of desti-
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
nation image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), 2e12.
Boo, S., Busser, J., & Baloglu, S. (2009). A model of customer-based brand equity and
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: an
its application to multiple destinations. Tourism Management, 30(2), 219e231.
empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 3e13.
Bornhorst, T., Ritchie, J. R. B., & Sheehan, L. (2010). Determinants of tourism success
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron: University of
for DMOs & destinations: an empirical examination of stakeholders’ perspec-
Akron Press.
tives. Tourism Management, 31(5), 572e589.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equations models with
Brodie, R. J., Whittome, J. R. M., & Brush, G. J. (2009). Investigating the service brand:
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
a customer value perspective. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 345e355.
18(1), 39e50.
 J.A. García et al. / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 646e661
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston:
Pitman.
Freire, J. R. (2009). ‘Local people’ a critical dimension for place brands. Journal of
Brand Management, 16(7), 420e438.
Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika,
61(1), 101e107.
Geisser, S. (1975). The predictive sample reuse method with applications. Journal of
the American Statistical Association, 70(350), 320e328.
Gilmore, F. (2002). A country e can it be repositioned? Spain e the success story of
country branding. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4e5), 281e293.
Götz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K., & Krafft, M. (2010). Evaluation of structural equation
models using the partial least squares (PLS) approach. In V. Esposito,
W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares:
Concepts, methods, and applications (pp. 691e711). Heidelberg: Springer.
Hankinson, G. (2001). Location branding: a study of twelve English cities. Journal of
Brand Management, 9(2), 127e142.
Hankinson, G. (2004). Relational network brands: towards a conceptual model of
place brands. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 109e121.
Hankinson, G. (2007). The management of destination brands: five guiding prin-
ciples based on recent developments in corporate branding theory. Journal of
Brand Management, 14(3), 240e254.
Hankinson, G. (2009). Managing destination brands: establishing a theoretical
foundation. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(1e2), 97e115.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares
path modeling in international marketing. In S. Zou (Ed.), New challenges to
international marketing (pp. 277e319). Bingley: Emerald.
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct
indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199e218.
Jones, R. (2005). Finding sources of brand value: developing a stakeholder model of
brand equity. Journal of Brand Management, 13(1), 10e32.
Kamakura, W. A., & Russell, G. J. (1991). Measuring consumer perceptions of brand
quality with scanner data: Implications for brand equity. Cambridge: Marketing
Science Institute. MSI report working papers no. 91e122.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based
brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1e22.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing
brand equity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kohr, R. L., & Games, P. A. (1974). Robustness of the analysis of variance, the Welch
procedure, and a Box procedure to heterogeneous variances. Journal of Experi-
mental Education, 43(1), 61e69.
Konecnik, M., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Customer-based brand equity for a destina-
tion. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2), 400e421.
Kotler, P., & Gertner, D. (2002). Country as brand, product, and beyond: a place
marketing and brand management perspective. Journal of Brand Management,
9(4e5), 249e261.
Levene, H. (1960). Robust test for equality of variances. In I. Olkin (Ed.), Contribu-
tions to probability and statistics (pp. 278e292). California: Stanford University
Press.
Marzano, G., & Scott, N. (2009). Power in destination branding. Annals of Tourism
Research, 36(2), 247e267.
Mayo, E. J. (1975). Tourism and the national parks: a psychographic and attitudinal
study. Journal of Travel Research, 14(1), 14e21.
Morgan, N. J., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2003). Destination branding and the role of
stakeholders: the case of New Zealand. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3),
285e299.
Murray, K., & Schlacter, J. (1990). The impact of services versus goods on consumers’
assessment of perceived risk and variability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 18(1), 51e65.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Oh, H. (2000). Diner’s perceptions of quality, value, and satisfaction. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 58e66.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2006). Consumer-based brand equity and
country-of-origin relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 40(5e6),
696e717.
Peralba, R. (2007). Destinos turísticos: ¿commodities o marca? Harvard Deusto
Marketing y Ventas, 79, 74e80.
Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in information
systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623e656.
661
Pike, S. (2002). Destination image analysis e a review of 142 papers from 1973 to
2000. Tourism Management, 23(5), 541e549.
Pike, S. (2005). Tourism destination branding complexity. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 14(4), 258e259.
Pike, S. (2007). Consumer-based brand equity for destinations: practical DMO
performance measures. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 22(1), 51e61.
Pike, S. (2009). Destination brand positions of a competitive set of near-home
destinations. Tourism Management, 30(6), 857e866.
Rathmell, J. (1966). What is the meant by services. Journal of Marketing, 30(4),
32e36.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) beta. Hamburg:
University of Hamburg. http://www.smartpls.de.
Risitano, M. (2006). The role of destination branding in the tourism stakeholders
system. The Campi Flegrei case. Paper presented at the IV International doctoral
tourism and leisure colloquium, 3 May, Barcelona.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Ritchie, R. J. B. (1998). The branding of tourism destinations: past
achievements and future challenges. In AIEST. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1998
annual congress of the International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism,
destination marketing: Scopes and limitations (pp. 89e116). Marrakech: Inter-
national Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism.
Robson, J., & Robson, I. (1996). From shareholders to stakeholders: critical issues for
tourism marketers. Tourism Management, 17(7), 533e540.
San Martín, H., & Rodríguez, I. A. (2008). Exploring the cognitive-affective nature of
destination image and the role of psychological factors in its formation. Tourism
Management, 29(2), 263e277.
Sautter, E. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 312e328.
Scheffé, H. (1953). A method for judging all contrasts in analysis of variance. Bio-
metrika, 40(1e2), 87e104.
Scheffé, H. (1959). The analysis of variance. New York: Wiley.
Sheehan, L., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). Destination stakeholders: exploring identity
and salience. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 711e734.
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 32(2), 111e147.
Stoney, C., & Winstanley, D. (2001). Stakeholding: confusion or utopia? Mapping the
conceptual terrain. Journal of Management Studies, 38(5), 603e626.
Tamhane, A. C. (1979). A comparison of procedures for multiple comparisons of
means with unequal variances. Journal of the American Statistical Association,
74(366), 471e480.
Tasci, A. D. A., & Kozak, M. (2006). Destination brands vs destination images: do we
know what we mean? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12(4), 299e317.
van Gelder, S. (2008). How to improve the chances of successfully developing and
implementing a place brand strategy. Placebrands, Available from http://www.
placebrands.net/_files/Successful_Place_Branding.pdf Accessed 28.06.09.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1e17.
Venaik, S., Midgley, D. F., & Devinney, T. M. (2004). A new perspective on the
integration-responsiveness pressures confronting multinational firms.
Management International Review, 44(1), 15e48.
Webster, F. E. (2000). Understanding the relationships among brands, consumers &
resellers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 17e23.
Weible, C. M. (2006). An advocacy coalition framework approach to stakeholder
analysis: understanding the political context of California marine protected
area policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 95e117.
Welch, B. L. (1951). On the comparison of several mean values: an alternative
approach. Biometrika, 38(3e4), 330e336.
Wells, W. D. (1964). EQ, son of EQ, and the reaction profile. Journal of Marketing,
28(4), 45e52.
Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1974). Intraclass reliability estimates:
testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
34(1), 25e33.
White, C. (2004). Destination image: to see or not to see? International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(4e5), 309e314.
Yasarata, M., Altinay, L., Burns, P., & Okumus, F. (2009). Politics and sustainable
tourism development e can they co-exist? Tourism Management, 31(3),
345e356.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix
elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2),
195e211.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality & value: a means-end
model & synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2e22.