Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

A model of customer-based brand equity and its application to multiple

destinations
Soyoung Boo a, *, James Busser b,1, Seyhmus Baloglu c, 2
a
The George Washington University, School of Business, Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Funger Hall, Suite 301s, 2201 G Street, NW Washington,
DC 20052, United States
b
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Department of Recreation and Sport Management, William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, 4505 Maryland Parkway,
Box 456013, Las Vegas, NV 89154-6013, United States
c
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Department of Tourism and Convention Management, William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, 4505 Maryland Parkway,
Box 456023, Las Vegas, NV 89154-6023, United States

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

Article history: Lack of research regarding destination brand measurement indicates that conceptualizing how tourists
Received 7 November 2007 evaluate a destination brand is complex. This study examined empirical information to develop a des-
Accepted 18 June 2008 tination brand model by employing customer-based brand equity models through a scale purification
process, ensuring its reliability and validity. The proposed model and the alternative model were tested
Keywords: with an online survey sample of Las Vegas and Atlantic City visitors. The results provide support for the
Destination brand
concept of customer-based brand equity and corroborate its application to the destination context.
Branding
However, multi-sample invariance tests implied that destination-specific items should be considered
Customer-based brand equity
Destination brand experience when developing a destination brand model.
Multi-sample invariance test Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
It is generally accepted that a brand is a powerful means of
differentiation, and that differentiation is a significant competitive
marketing strategy (Kapferer, 1997; Keller, 2003; Kotler, 1988;
Pappu, Quester, & Cooksey, 2005; Tasci, Gartner, & Cavusgil, 2007).
The extension of the brand concept from products to service in-
dustries such as tourism offers implications for resort and travel
destination management (Buhalis, 2000; d’Hauteserre, 2001;
Konecnik & Gartner, 2007; Ritchie & Ritchie, 1998; Williams, Gill, &
Chura, 2004; Woodside, Cruickshank, & Dehuang, 2007). Destina-
tion branding is considered a vital aspect of current destination
management practice, as broadening tourist opportunities and
travel locations have resulted in the increased substitutability and
lack of differentiation amongst some destinations (Pike, 2005).
The complex characteristics of a destination present a challenge
to branding (Cai, 2002; Dredge & Jenkins, 2003; Gnoth, 2002;
Murphy, Pritchard, & Smith, 2000). There have been few systematic
investigations of brands within tourism destinations (Hankinson,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 202 994 6629; fax: þ1 202 994 1630.
E-mail addresses: soyoungb@gwu.edu (S. Boo), james.busser@unlv.edu
(J. Busser), Seyhmus.baloglu@unlv.edu (S. Baloglu).
1
Tel.: þ1 702 895 0942; fax: þ1 702 895 4109.
2
Tel.: þ1 702 895 3932; fax: þ1 702 895 4870.
2005; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007). In some cases, destination brand
research has followed a marketing approach from a retail per-
spective; however, these were at the conceptual level of explora-
tion (Cai, 2002; Prebensen, 2007; Woodside et al., 2007).
In terms of destination brand management, various means to
communicate the brand message effectively have been suggested
(Jago, Chalip, Brown, Mules, & Ali, 2003; Morgan, Pritchard, &
Piggott, 2002; Ooi, 2004). However, specific effects on destination
brand management, such as the assessment of brand impact, have
not been investigated. Measuring the effectiveness of brands is
a crucial aspect of successful long-term destination management
(Blain, Levy, & Ritchie, 2005). It has been suggested that the effec-
tiveness of destination brands can be measured from a customer
perspective. Furthermore, empirical research that focuses on ex-
perienced travelers and their perception of the destination brand
should be employed to measure the effects of brands on the cus-
tomer (Blain et al., 2005; Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2003; Ritchie &
Ritchie, 1998).
In spite of the growing importance of destination brands, most
conceptual and empirical research has focused on destination im-
ages (Cai, 2002; Hall, 2002; Hankinson, 2004, 2005; Papadopoulos
& Heslop, 2002; Prebensen, 2007; Pritchard & Morgan, 2001; Tasci
et al., 2007). This approach, based on image-level conceptualiza-
tion, implies that the measurement of the effectiveness of desti-
nation brands relies solely on images of the destination. It has been

0261-5177/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.06.003
220 S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231
suggested that, despite the pivotal role of visual image in brand
evaluations, other brand assessment dimensions should be con-
sidered (Hankinson, 2004; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007). Most re-
cently, by applying customer-based brand equity to tourist
destinations, Konecnik and Gartner (2007) proposed and tested
four dimensions of a destination’s brand (i.e., awareness, image,
quality, and loyalty) and found a positive relationship among the
variables. Their conclusion was that destination image is central to
brand evaluation and brand equity, but that the other dimensions
are also necessary to truly measure customer-based brand equity.
The purpose of this study was to apply and extend the concept of
customer-based brand equity to destination brand measurement in
an integrated model. This study has the following objectives: to
develop a valid and reliable model of consumer-based destination
brands, to empirically assess the dimensions of the destination
brand construct, to test the relationship among dimensions in
a destination brand construct, and to validate the model construct.
The process used to establish the model was based on a multi-di-
mensional perspective of destination brands.
The lack of research regarding destination brand measurement
may be an indication of the complexity involved in understanding
how tourists evaluate a destination brand. Hence, a study mea-
suring customer-based destination brands in an integrated con-
struct is important for several reasons. First, the exploratory work
will further define the nature of a destination’s brand, which is the
first step in developing a theory of the brand construct. Setting
boundaries for the destination brand construct is beneficial to avoid
redundancy with other constructs. Second, this study will suggest
a different approach to measure destination brands and provide
a valid and reliable measurement model. In addition, because there
has been no accepted measurement method, it is expected that the
findings will spur additional research.
2. Destination brand
2.1. Conceptualization of a brand for tourist destinations
Much of the current marketing literature indicates that the
principles of product brands do not apply directly to services
(Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2003; Knowles, 2001). Konecnik and Gartner
(2007) questioned whether the product brand concept can be
transferred to tourist destinations. Ooi (2004) also noted that
similarities in products and services brands are accentuated, but
that differences between them are often ignored by researchers.
Hence, studies of destinations suggest that the universality of
a brand has to be considered in terms of tourism characteristics and
destination attributes (Buhalis, 2000; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007;
McIntyre, 1993; Ringer, 1998; Tasci et al., 2007).
Definitions of tourism destination brands (Blain et al., 2005; Cai,
2002; Gyimothy, n.d.; Kaplanidou &Vogt, 2003) draw their in-
spiration from marketing, as the concept may be extended to both
tangible and intangible elements (Aaker, 1991; Clifton, 2003; Mur-
phy, 1998; Ward, Light, & Goldstein, 1999). In other words, tourists
perceive a destination as a product. They evaluate the attributes of
the destination through both cognitive and affective processes
(Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). Research has emphasized a unique
combination of functional, symbolic, and experiential elements of
a brand to create a unique destination identity (Dredge & Jenkins,
2003; Laws,1995; Williams et al., 2004). Also, the role of a destination
brand in the customer’s destination decision-making process has
been highlighted (Jago et al., 2003; Morgan et al., 2002; Ooi, 2004).
Academic interest in destination brands has emerged only re-
cently (Blain et al., 2005; Gnoth, 1998; Konecnik & Gartner 2007;
Williams et al., 2004). There is limited availability of destination
brand literature regarding the elements that comprise a brand, as
well as recommended measurement methods (Kaplanidou &Vogt,
2003; Ritchie & Ritchie, 1998), and components of destination
brands (Blain et al., 2005; Deslandes, 2003; Kaplanidou &Vogt,
2003; Pike, 2004). Most research has focused on case studies at the
conceptual or exploratory level (Cai, 2002; d’Hauteserre, 2001; Ooi,
2004; Pritchard & Morgan, 2001; Williams et al., 2004).
The examination of a destination’s brand is challenging, as the
literature lacks a commonly accepted framework (Konecnik &
Gartner, 2007). Interestingly, in the field of tourism, destination
image has been employed to understand destination brands (Cai,
2002; Edwards, Fernandes, Fox, & Vaughan, 2000; Hall, Robertson, &
Shaw, 2001; Hankinson, 2004, 2005; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007;
Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2002; Prebensen, 2007; Pritchard & Mor-
gan, 2001; Tasci et al., 2007). Ooi (2004) indicated that most des-
tination brand studies concentrate on how brand images and
messages are formulated and presented. In marketing, a brand is
also generally recognized as an extension of its image (Keller, 2003).
However, Hem and Iversen (2004) noted that ‘‘image formation
is not branding, albeit the former constitutes the core of the latter.
Image building is one step closer, but there still remains a critical
missing link: the brand identity. To advance destination image
studies to the level of branding, the link needs to be established’’ (p.
86). Kaplanidou and Vogt (2003) also indicated that a brand can
further build upon other destination components after establishing
an image that differentiates a destination from its competitors.
They suggested that destination brands could be envisioned by
identifying other dimensions in the construct.
2.2. Customer-based brand equity
The emergence of brand equity has raised the importance of
marketing strategies and provided focus for managers and re-
searchers (Keller, 2003). Brand equity is a core concept concerning
brand management and it is viewed from different perspectives
(Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003; Lassar, Mittal, & Sharma, 1995; Mota-
meni & Shahrokhi, 1998; Park & Srinivasan, 1994; Simon & Sullivan,
1993; Yoo & Donthu, 2001). There is considerable debate regarding
the definition of brand equity and its measurement (Yoo & Donthu,
2001). However, brand equity is accepted as the overall utility that
customers place in a brand compared to its competitors (de Cher-
natony & McDonald, 2003; Vazquez, Belen del Rio, & Iglesias, 2002).
Keller (2003) described brand equity as ‘‘a multidimensional
concept and complex enough that many different types of measures
are required. Multiple measures increase the diagnostic power of
marketing research’’ (p. 477). He noted that, from a marketing
perspective, brand equity is referred to as consumer-based brand
equity. Recently, the concept of brand equity has been employed to
measure how consumers assess a brand overall (Ford, 2005). In
particular, the measurement of customer-based brand equity is
considered an important but challenging aspect of branding (Pappu
et al., 2005). Although there have been no consistent measurement
techniques, several researchers have explored brand equity mea-
surement based on customers’ perspectives (Park & Srinivasan,
1994; Washburn & Plank, 2002; Yoo, Donthu, & Lee, 2000).
Recent studies have highlighted the need to refine and measure
the consumer-based brand equity construct (Yoo & Donthu, 2001).
De Chernatony and McDonald (2003) indicated that an instrument
to measure brand equity from a customer perspective has been
lacking despite the increasing importance of the brand equity
concept. Similarly, there is a need for a destination brand measure
(Blain et al., 2005; Deslandes, 2003; Kaplanidou &Vogt, 2003; Ooi,
2004; Ritchie & Ritchie, 1998).
The concept of customer-based brand equity and its measure-
ment have emerged in tourism and hospitality settings (Kim & Kim,
2005; Konecnik & Gartner, 2007; Lee & Back, 2008; Prasad & Dev,
2000). Destinations are far more multi-dimensional than consumer
goods and other types of services (Pike, 2005). Low and Lamb
 S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231
(2000) noted that researchers hypothesized that consumer per-
ceptions of brands are multi-dimensional, yet many of the di-
mensions identified appear to be very similar.
2.3. The conceptual framework
The review of brand research in destination marketing indicates
that it has largely been exploratory without the testing of a com-
prehensive model (Blain et al., 2005; Kaplanidou &Vogt, 2003;
Gnoth, 2002; Pike, 2004). Because it is critical to identify the di-
mensions of destination brand equity, an exhaustive review of the
literature was performed in order to select the most appropriate
way to measure each variable considered (Keller, 2003; Linder-
mann, 2004). The review offers several insights that past research
has provided into destination brand considerations. The proposi-
tions are presented for the conceptual baseline model in Fig. 1, with
the dimensions for this construct explained following Fig. 1.
2.3.1. Destination brand awareness (DBA)
Destination marketing aims to raise awareness of a destination
by creating a unique brand (Jago et al., 2003). Brand awareness
represents the strength of the brand’s presence in the mind of the
target audience along a continuum (Aaker, 1996). Aaker (1996)
portrayed brand awareness as a pyramid with three different levels.
The highest level is top-of-mind awareness that a particular brand
is ahead of others in the consumer’s mind; this is the level of
awareness chosen for this study.
Brand awareness is considered a main component of a brand’s
effect in hospitality and tourism (Kim & Kim, 2005; Kaplanidou
&Vogt, 2003; Lee & Back, 2008; Oh, 2000) and in the consumer’s
purchasing decision (Belonax & Javalgi, 1989; Kwun & Oh, 2004; Oh,
2000; Sivakumar & Raj, 1997; Webster, 2000). Brand awareness is
also a sub-component of brand equity (Keller, 2003) and a main
attribute of a brand (de Chernatony & McDonald, 2003; Motameni
& Shahrokhi, 1998). Brand awareness was found to be an important
antecedent of customer value (Oh, 2000; Kwun & Oh, 2004;
Webster, 2000) and contributed to hospitality firms’ performance
(Kim & Kim, 2005).
Konecnik and Gartner (2007) included brand awareness as one
dimension in the customer-based brand equity model. In their
study, cognitive image and conative image constituted an aware-
ness dimension used to measure Slovenia’s awareness to German
Fig. 1. The proposed baseline model. Note. DBA (destination brand awareness), DBI
(destination brand image), DBQ (destination brand quality), DBV (destination brand
value), DBL (destination brand loyalty).
221
and Croatian tourists. They used ‘‘name’’ and ‘‘characteristics’’ of
the destination to measure brand awareness and found that brand
awareness was an important dimension in their model.
2.3.2. Destination brand image (DBI)
Brand image has been considered as the reasoned or emotional
perceptions consumers attach to specific brands (Dobni & Zinkhan,
1990; Keller, 2003). Brand image has also been identified as an
important source of brand equity (Keller, 2003; Lassar et al., 1995).
Blain et al. (2005) suggested that destination image should be in-
cluded in the definition of destination brands. Tourism and hospi-
tality brand image has been considered a main dimension of brand
equity (Konecnik & Gartner, 2007; Kim & Kim, 2005). Cai (2002)
considered brand image building to be an important component in
the formation of a destination branding model.
There have been a variety of approaches to measuring brand
image (Lassar et al., 1995; Low & Lamb, 2000; Tsai, 2005). For ex-
ample, Lassar et al. (1995) developed a scale for measuring con-
sumer-based brand equity, in which they referred to the image
dimension as the social image, which is understood as the con-
sumer’s perception of the esteem in which the consumer’s social
group holds the brand. Tsai (2005) considered brand image as the
consumer’s perceptions of social approval. However, Martı́nez and
de Chernatony (2004) noted that the existing literature shows that
brand image is a multi-dimensional concept, without any consen-
sus on how to empirically measure it.
Dobni and Zinkhan (1990) argued that there are numerous def-
initions of brand image in the literature which initially may cause
confusion about the best scale to use. In this study, the destination
brand image is limited to the social image and self-image of brand
personality (Grace & O’Cass, 2005; Kapferer, 1997; Lassar et al.,1995;
Sirgy & Su, 2000) because brand image has also been considered an
element of brand personality (Hosany, Ekinci, & Uysal, 2006; Pat-
terson, 1999; Phau & Lau, 2002; Upshaw, 1995). Brand image has
been significantly related to customers’ self-concepts (Aaker, 1996;
Belk, 1988; de Chernatony & Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998; Solomon, 1999).
Pitt, Opoku, Hultman, Abratt, and Spyropoulou (2007) support the
notion that branding is the process of creating a brand image that
engages the hearts and minds of customers.
Research supports a positive relationship between brand image
and value (Michell, King, & Reast, 2001; Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Tsai,
2005). Destination image also has been identified as a key com-
ponent of destination loyalty (Hosany et al., 2006). It has been
suggested that brand image may have an influence on customer
loyalty (Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Zins, 2001).
2.3.3. Destination brand quality (DBQ)
Brand quality is one of the key dimensions of brand equity
(Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003; Lassar et al., 1995). Brand quality has
been used interchangeably with perceived quality by customers
(Aaker, 1991; Zeithaml, 1988). In a customer-based brand equity
model, Keller (2003) identified seven dimensions of product qual-
ity: performance; features; conformation quality; reliability; du-
rability; serviceability; and style and design. Among Keller’s seven
dimensions, brand performance was included in the model
employed in this study to measure destination brand quality
because brand performance relates to the ways in which the des-
tination attempts to meet tourists’ functional needs (Keller, 2003).
Also, brand performance, as a dimension of brand quality, has been
considered as a main determinant of brand equity (Lassar et al.,
1995). In discussing destination brands, elements including envi-
ronment and service infrastructure should be considered in mea-
suring destination brand performance (Buhalis, 2000; Murphy
et al., 2000; Williams et al., 2004).
Perceived quality is a direct antecedent of perceived value
(Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal, 1991; Oh, 2000; Teas & Laczbiak, 2004).
222 S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231
Low and Lamb (2000) noted that perceived quality is central to the
theory that strong brands add value to consumers’ purchases.
Murphy et al. (2000) also showed that perceived trip quality pos-
itively affected perceived trip value. Deslandes (2003) found that
perceived quality of a tourist destination was positively related to
the perceived value of that destination. Konecnik and Gartner
(2007) identified brand quality as a main dimension of customer-
based brand equity when applied to a destination. In addition,
a positive relationship between perceived quality and brand loyalty
has been found (Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Jayanti & Ghosh, 1996;
Michell et al., 2001).
2.3.4. Destination brand value (DBV)
Though there has been no generally accepted or consistent
definition of customer value (Day & Crask, 2000; Flint, Woodruff, &
Gardial, 2002; Parasuraman, 1997), the most popular definition has
been a price-based definition (Sweeny, Soutar, & Johnson, 1999;
Tsai, 2005). Lassar et al. (1995) indicated that customer choice of
a brand depends on a perceived balance between the price of
a product and its utility.
Research has verified that perceived value can be treated as
a multi-dimensional construct (Hall et al., 2001; Sirgy & Johar,
1999). Aaker (1996) noted that brand value can be measured by
asking customers whether the brand provides good value for the
money, or whether there are reasons to buy one brand over that of
a competitor. Based on Aaker (1996) and Sweeney and Soutar
(2001), this study will modify functional value (i.e., value for
money) for the destination brand context.
There is a positive relationship between the perceived value of
a product’s brand and future behavioral intentions characterized as
repurchase intention (Petrick, Backman, & Bixler, 1999; Teas &
Laczniak, 2004; Tsai, 2005; Woodruff, 1997). Also, customer value
was positively associated with future behaviors, such as purchase
and search intentions (Oh, 2000) and willingness to buy (Sweeney
et al., 1999). There is also a positive relationship between perceived
value and customers’ loyalty (Barrows, Latuuca, & Bosselmanc,
1989; Chiou, 2004; Kwun & Oh, 2004). These findings are consis-
tent with the viewpoints that customer value plays an important
role in creating customer loyalty (Grewal, Levy, & Lehmann, 2004),
and that customer value impacts customer loyalty (Oliver, 1980;
Zeithaml, 1988).
2.3.5. Destination brand loyalty (DBL)
The brand loyalty of the customer base is the core of a brand’s
equity (Aaker, 1991). Lassar et al. (1995) noted that ‘‘brand equity
stems from the greater confidence that consumers place in a brand
than they do in its competitors. This confidence translates into
consumers’ loyalty and their willingness to pay a premium price
for the brand’’ (p. 11). The ability to create customer loyalty is
a major goal of brand management. Keller (2003) operationalized
brand loyalty as the main source of customer-based brand equity.
Brand loyalty was defined as the attachment a customer has to
a brand (Aaker, 1991).
Generally, brand loyalty has been considered either an attitude
or behavior (Odin, Odin, & Valetter-Florence, 2001). However, in
terms of measurement, a review of the literature highlights the lack
of clarity about the conceptual nature of brand loyalty. This has
resulted in the use of a variety of measurement tools producing
inconsistent findings (Odin et al., 2001).
Although loyalty has been an important research area in tourism
(Baloglu, 2001, 2002; Baloglu & Erickson, 1998; Nininen & Riley,
2004; Oppermann, 2000), there is no definition of destination
brand loyalty within the concept of destination brand equity. In
tourism and hospitality, Back and Parks (2003) also noted that
brand loyalty has been considered a consequence of multi-di-
mensional cognitive attitudes toward a specific brand. Konecnik
and Gartner (2007) noted the importance of brand loyalty for
Slovenia in the brand equity model. In addition, Kim and Kim
(2005) found that brand loyalty from the customers’ perspectives
affects a firm’s performance in the luxury hotel business. This study
limited brand loyalty to the attitudinal and behavioral elements
and proposes a significant relationship between brand value and
brand loyalty.
3. Study methods
3.1. Instrument and pretests
Each construct in the destination brand model requires scale
items that are destination-specific. Reis and Judd (2000) noted that
‘‘the psychometric approach relies on aggregate patterns of data to
evaluate a proposed measurement model’’ (p. 341). Hence, multiple
items for each dimension are useful to examine construct valida-
tion and check the consistency level of a respondent’s self-report of
each dimension. Multiple items were used to measure each di-
mension of destination brand awareness (DBA), destination brand
image (DBI), destination brand quality (DBQ), destination brand
loyalty (DBL), and destination brand value (DBV).
An initial draft set of items was derived from the literature re-
view. A preliminary email survey was then conducted among
a small group of academic experts to assure the integrity of the
questionnaire. Feedback from the expert panel led to minor re-
wording of some of the items. Next, two different pretests were
conducted on college students in tourism-related classes and on
tourists who visited Las Vegas. The data collected from both sam-
ples were used to test the validity and reliability of the scale items
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
A sample of 237 college students at a state university in the
southwestern US was utilized in the first pretest during March
2006. No issues were found regarding wording, clarity of ques-
tions, flow, or layout. The results of reliability tests showed that
the item-to-total correlations all exceeded .50 and Cronbach’s
alpha values ranged from .915 to .929. However, confirmatory
factor analysis showed that the six items for destination image,
the five items for destination brand quality, and the six items for
brand loyalty did not show good model-fit indices for each latent
variable.
Tourists visiting Las Vegas, representing a more heterogeneous
population, were surveyed for the second pretest. A face-to-face
survey was conducted with a sample of 224 tourists in front of the
‘‘Fountain Show’’ at Bellagio, one of the large casino resorts on the
Las Vegas Strip. Using data obtained from the tourist sample, all
items that had corrected item-to-total subscale correlations above
.50 were chosen. Cronbach’s alpha for the 26 items ranged from
.943 to .947, indicating that internal consistencies were acceptable.
All items except ‘‘This destination has high quality offerings’’ in
destination brand quality showed significant correlation.
Next, principal axis factoring with promax rotation was con-
ducted. A cut-off of .5 was established for loadings to be salient to
the factor (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The one item in brand
image, ‘‘I would be proud to visit this destination,’’ and the other item
in brand loyalty, ‘‘If the costs of visiting this destination increased, I
would be proud to visit this destination,’’ were cross-loading onto the
other dimensions and therefore were deleted. In order to assure
discriminant validity of the measures, one item in destination im-
age, ‘‘People similar to me visit this destination,’’ and another item in
brand loyalty, ‘‘I am emotionally attached to this destination,’’ were
deleted due to low correlations with their respective dimensions
(Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989). This resulted in the initial 26
items being reduced to 21 items.
A series of confirmatory factor analyses with the remaining 21
items was undertaken, with all of the multi-item scales yielding
 S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231
a one-factor solution. The final 21 items are presented in Table 1 and
were used for the main survey. The items in the Reference column
were modified from studies appropriate for casino gambling desti-
nations. Also, this study followed Rigdon (1995) in terms of the
number of observed variables, with at least three observed variables
per latent variable as recommended for confirmatory factor analysis.
3.2. Data collection
Regarding the selection of Las Vegas and Atlantic City as the
destination brands studied, this study followed the recommenda-
tion of Leuthesser, Kohli, and Harich (1995), which was to choose to
analyze brands that are sufficiently well-known to the consumer.
Comparative model testing has been found to be the best strategy
for evaluating and improving the measurement model (Reis & Judy,
2000).
This study employed an online panel survey. Online panelist
surveys composed of professional respondents have been shown to
be equivalent to other methodologies (Dennis, 2001). Subjects for
this study were people who had visited the gambling destinations
of Las Vegas, Nevada, and/or Atlantic City, New Jersey. Las Vegas
and Atlantic City are in the same destination brand category be-
cause these two destinations have similar gambling and enter-
tainment offerings. Additionally, Crimmins (2000) indicated that
brand equity is a concept that can be measured in comparison with
others in the same brand category.
A project manager from Survey Sampling Incorporated (SSI)
formatted the survey designed by the authors into an online survey
tool hosted by Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com). The
sample population for this study was obtained from Survey Sam-
pling Incorporated (SSI), a company specializing in online sampling
and surveying (www.surveysampling.com). This particular choice
resulted from the difficulty of compiling a complete list of adults
who have visited either Las Vegas or Atlantic City or both.
Email requests to participate in the survey were sent out to
10,000 SurveySpot members explaining the purpose of the re-
search, along with a link to the online survey site. The welcome
Table 1
The final items for the main survey
Dimension Items
Destination brand 1. This destination has a good name & reputation
awareness (DBA) 2. This destination is very famous
3. The characteristics of this destination come to my mind quickly
4. When I am thinking about gaming, this destination comes to
my mind immediately
Destination brand 1. This destination fits my personality
image (DBI) 2. My friends would think highly of me if I visited this destination
3. The image of this destination is consistent with my own self-image
4. Visiting this destination reflects who I am
Destination brand 1. This destination provides tourism offerings of consistent quality
quality (DBQ) 2. This destination provides quality experiences
3. From this destination’s offerings, I can expect superior performance
4. This destination performs better than other similar destinations
Destination brand 1. This destination has reasonable prices
value (DBV) 2. Considering what I would pay for a trip, I will get much more than
my money’s worth by visiting this destination
3. The costs of visiting this destination are a bargain relative to the
benefits I receive
4. Visiting this destination is economical
5. Visiting this destination is a good deal
Destination brand 1. I enjoy visiting this destination
loyalty (DBL) 2. This destination would be my preferred choice for a vacation
3. Overall, I am loyal to this destination
4. I would advise other people to visit this destination
Note. The items were randomly arranged on the questionnaires across the samples to reduce order bias.
223
screen also provided brief instructions. Because non-probability
relevance sampling was employed for more systematic research
(Keeter, 2005), only individuals who fit the following were eligible
to participate in the survey: (1) at least 21 years of age; (2) had
visited Las Vegas and/or Atlantic City to gamble within the last 12
months. Respondents were also informed that they had to click
only one link to two different online questionnaires (i.e., one for Las
Vegas, and the other for Atlantic City). Respondents were directed
to complete only one survey.
The questionnaires were posted between May 25, 2006, and
June 6, 2006. Participants were asked to use a ‘‘point-and click’’
procedure and a seven-point Likert scale, from strongly agree (7) to
strongly disagree (1) with carefully constructed statements. The
survey was voluntary and was submitted upon its completion.
A project manager of SSI and the authors checked the number of
respondents. Establishing a minimum sample size of 200 is con-
sidered a rule of thumb in the analysis of Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1988; Shah &
Goldstein, 2006). A total of 510 respondents completed the survey
(Las Vegas ¼ 270 and Atlantic City ¼ 240), representing a response
rate 5.1%. This response rate pertains to the invitation emails. The
authors limited the sample size to 200 regardless of the survey time
frame. In addition, more than 90% of the surveys were reliably and
accurately completed. Klassen and Jacobs (2001) noted that, be-
cause distribution, collection and data entry costs are minimal for
Web surveys, lower response rates may be tolerable if the target
pool is broadened. The coded data were downloaded from sur-
veymonkey.com, and transformed into SPSS format.
4. Results
4.1. Profiles of respondents
Profiles of respondents from the Las Vegas and Atlantic City
samples were similar. The majority of survey respondents were
Caucasian and female. Education level and household income level
were slightly higher in the Atlantic City sample.
References
1–2. Motameni and Shahrokhi (1998), Oh (2000)
3. Arnett et al. (2003), Pappu and Quester (2006), Yoo and Donthu (2001)
4. Kaplanidou and Vogt (2003)
1–2. Lassar et al. (1995)
3–4. Sirgy et al. (1997), Grace and O’Cass (2005)
1–2. Aaker (1991), Sweeney and Soutar (2001)
3–4. Lassar et al. (1995)
1. Ambler et al. (2002), Sweeney and Soutar (2001)
2–3. Lassar et al.(1995), Dodds et al. (1991)
4. Sweeney and Soutar (2001), Grace and O’Cass (2005), Dodds et al. (1991)
5. Oh (2000)
1. Baloglu (2002), Back and Parks (2003)
2–3. Keller (2003), Odin et al. (2001), Yoo and Donthu (2001)
4. Arnett et al. (2003), Belén del Rı́o et al.(2001)
224 S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

In the Las Vegas sample, the respondents included 88 men (34%) Table 2
and 169 women (66%). More than half of the respondents were Construct reliability and validity

between 40 and 59 years of age (53%) and married (55%). The ma- Factor Construct reliability Validity
jority of the respondents were college graduates (76%) and were Coefficient Composite Discriminant Convergent
Caucasian (89%). Nearly 31% of the respondents had visited Las Vegas alpha reliability validity validity
in the past six months to gamble and 43.0% of the respondents had Las Vegas DBA .879 .884 .517–.810 .428–.856
intentions to visit Las Vegas within six months to gamble. DBI .897 .896 .724–.809 .748–.860
In the Atlantic City sample, there was an overrepresentation of DBQ .911 .911 .730–.841 .705–.869
DBV .938 .939 .594–.748 .839–.860
women (65%). The age of respondents was recorded in categories,
DBL .888 .890 .684–.841 .638–.835
with the majority of the individuals in their 50s (27%) followed by
those in their 30s (23%). Martial status was almost evenly distrib- Atlantic City DBA .841 .805 .662–.787 .670–.802
uted between those who were single (48%) and married (52%). The DBI .926 .911 .794–.896 .756–.877
majority of the respondents were college graduates (81%) and DBQ .886 .884 .785–.817 .797–.825
Caucasian (90%). Nearly 41% of the respondents had visited Atlantic DBV .935 .936 .787–.851 .815–.834
DBL .907 .864 .725–.881 .603–.805
City in the past six months to gamble and 49% of the respondents
had intentions to visit Atlantic City within six months to gamble. Note. DBA (destination brand awareness), DBI (destination brand image), DBQ
(destination brand quality), DBV (destination brand value), DBL (destination brand
loyalty).
4.2. Examining data

Data screening procedures were conducted for both samples.
There were only moderate levels of missing data in the completed
responses. As a result, it was assumed that missing data would be
random and that Maximum Likelihood Estimation would reduce
bias even if the condition of missing at random was not completely
satisfied (Little & Rubin, 2002). In all cases, the mean values were
substituted for missing values (Tabachinick & Fidell, 2001).
The examination of univariate normality estimates indicated 22
outliers for the Las Vegas sample and 12 outliers for the Atlantic
City sample. According to Tabachinick and Fidell (2001), whether to
omit or retain outliers is a decision that depends on the circum-
stances surrounding the origin of the case in question, the sample
size, and the importance of each case to the research conclusions.
The authors decided to retain the outliers, as they were represen-
tative of the population (Hair et al., 1998).
In addition, skewness and kurtosis values for all variables
included in this study were satisfactory (West, Finch, & Curran,
1995). To compensate for this lack of multivariate normality, loga-
rithmic transformation was also necessary (Hair et al., 1998). The
multivariate normality of the data was investigated by conducting
normality checks through the AMOS software. Similar to the Las
Vegas visitor sample, a logarithmic transformation for the Atlantic
City sample was successful.
4.3. Proposed baseline model testing
As a preliminary analysis of the structural equation modeling,
the zero-order correlations between indicators were calculated.
Results showed that indicators were moderately correlated
(.32 w .78) at the significance level of p < .0005.
Model testing was estimated using a two step-approach which
applied separate estimation and respecification of the mea-
surement model before proceeding to the simultaneous estimation
of the measurement and structural model (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988). An exploratory principle-axis factor analysis with an oblique
rotation was conducted to determine the underlying structure for
latent variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). This was determined by
examining correlations among the factors obtained from an oblique
rotation. The correlation coefficients were significant among the
variables. All variables exceeded the cut-off factor loading score
of .4 used to screen out weak indicators (Hair et al., 1998).
One of the paths from the latent variable to one of its indicators
was constrained by assigning it a value of 1.0. The fixed path helps
in interpreting manifest indicators with different response patterns
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
Table 2 shows the construct reliability and validity of each latent
variable. Cronbach’s alpha and composite construct reliabilities
were computed to assess the internal consistency of the constructs.
The results demonstrated that the SEM for the two samples was
reliable. Convergent validity measures the degree to which the
indicators of a latent construct measure the same construct
(Blanthorne, Jones-Faremer, & Almer, 2006). For each set of in-
dicators, the standardized factor loadings were all relatively high.
Discriminant validity measures the degree to which two or more
latent constructs measure different constructs (Blanthorne et al.,
2006). As the confidence interval test to assess the discriminant
validity between the factors does not include 1.0, discriminant
validity is demonstrated (Anderson & Gerbing 1988). As seen in
Table 2, the discriminant validity was confirmed. Overall, the pro-
posed scale of the destination brand equity model is reliable and
valid.
Also, the goodness-of-fit indices for each dimension using the
one-factor solution showed that the indices suggested a satisfac-
tory, yet not perfect, degree of unidimensionality. Results showed
that the structural equation model for the data using the two
samples did not show a good fit, although it is acceptable; Las Vegas
(LV) sample (c2 ¼ 400.092, p ¼ .0005, c2/df ¼ 3.008, TLL ¼ .926,
CFI ¼ .953, RMSEA ¼ .086), and Atlantic City (AC) sample
(c2 ¼ 330.288, p ¼ .0005, c2/df ¼ 2.664, TLL ¼ .929, CFI ¼ .951,
RMSEA ¼ .083). Path analysis showed an inconsistent path re-
lationship among factors across the two samples. The path co-
efficients indicated that destination brand image was significantly
related to destination brand value {LV sample (b ¼ .435, t ¼ 6.391,
p < .0005), AC sample (b ¼ .438, t ¼ 5.047, p < .0005)} and desti-
nation brand loyalty {LV sample (b ¼ .679, t ¼ 7.863, p < .0005), AC
sample (b ¼ .349, t ¼ 4.118, p < .0005)}, respectively, across the
samples. Also, destination brand quality was positively related to
destination brand loyalty across the samples {LV sample (b ¼ .289,
t ¼ 4.409, p < .0005), AC sample (b ¼ .432, t ¼ 5.465, p < .0005)}.
Although a significant relationship between destination brand
quality and destination brand value was found for the AC sample
(b ¼ .412, t ¼ 2.576, p < .05), it was not found for the LV sample.
Also, a positive relationship between destination brand value and
destination brand loyalty was found only for the AC sample
(b ¼ .236, t ¼ .853, p < .005). Interestingly, destination brand
awareness did not show a statistically significant relationship with
destination brand value across the two samples. As a result, an
alternative or rival model was investigated.
4.4. Alternative model building and testing
Because of an inadequate model fit and high correlation be-
tween destination brand image and destination brand quality, the
proposed model was respecified by conceptualizing destination
 S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231
brand image and destination brand quality as components of a new
latent construct: destination brand experience as shown in Fig. 2.
This revision was consistent with the branding and brand equity
literature. Konecnik and Gartner (2007) noted the problems in
identifying variables for the quality dimension because previous
studies measured a mix of image and quality attributes.
Brand experience is the primary driver of brand equity (Berry,
2000). Recently, there has been an increased emphasis on cus-
tomer-focused marketing approaches, especially in terms of max-
imizing brand equity through experience (Ambler et al., 2002). The
concept of brand emphasizes the emotional benefits to consumers
through purchase experiences (Ambler, 1997; Bhat & Reddy, 1998;
Long & Schiffman, 2000). Also, it has been suggested that the tourist
experience which was influenced by destination image and desti-
nation performance can be the underlying structure for building
destination brands (Buhalis, 2000; Hall, 2002; Murphy et al., 2000;
Ooi, 2004).
Destination brand image and destination brand quality were
combined and the second-order confirmatory factor analysis model
was examined. Through a series of careful comparisons of mea-
surement model estimates, one measurement model emerged that
showed good model-fit indices across the two samples. Three in-
dicators of destination brand image, (‘‘The destination fits my per-
sonality,’’ ‘‘My friends would think highly of me if I visited this
destination,’’ ‘‘The image of this destination is consistent with my own
self-image’’), and two indicators of destination brand quality (‘‘The
destination provides quality experiences’’, ‘‘This destination performs
better than other similar destinations’’), were chosen for destination
brand experience.
The model fits well across the two samples, indicating that
destination brand image (with three items) and destination brand
quality (with two items) comprise destination brand experience for
the LV and AC samples; LV sample (c2 ¼ 33.595, p ¼ .005, c2/
df ¼ 2.800, NFI ¼ .980, CFI ¼ .987, RMSEA ¼ .062), and AC sample
(c2 ¼ 13.002, p ¼ .293, c2/df ¼ 1.182, NFI ¼ .991, CFI ¼ .999,
RMSEA ¼ .028). Also, the path relationship among destination
brand awareness, destination brand experience, destination brand
value, and destination brand loyalty was examined. In the hypoth-
esized relationship test in the proposed model, the relationship
between destination brand awareness and destination brand value
was not statistically significant. Therefore, the path from destina-
tion brand awareness to destination brand value was deleted.
The emerged structural equation model output showed that the
alternative model had adequate fit across the two samples even
though the c2 tests were significant {LV sample (c2 ¼ 64.206,
p ¼ .000, c2/df ¼ 2.918, TLL ¼ .939, CFI ¼ .985, RMSEA ¼ .074), and
Fig. 2. The alternative model. Note. DBA (destination brand awareness), DBI (destina-
tion brand image), DBQ (destination brand quality), DBV (destination brand value), DBL
(destination brand loyalty), DBEX (destination brand experience).
225
AC sample (c2 ¼ 40.823, p ¼ .009, c2/df ¼ 1.856, TLL ¼ .967,
CFI ¼ .992, RMSEA ¼ .060)}. This is not unusual, given the sensi-
tivity of the c2 test to sample size, and hence it rarely provides the
basis to reject the tenability of the model. This sensitivity is said to
be an issue when the sample size exceeds 200 respondents (Hair
et al., 1998). A more useful measure of fit is to divide the c2 statistic
by its degrees of freedom (Kline 2005). Kline (2005) suggested that
any ratio below 3 is indicative of a well-fitting model with critical n
above 200. Therefore, c2/df values for the two samples support an
adequate model fit.
The path relationships among latent variables were consistent
across the two samples. Interestingly, destination brand awareness
has a significant effect on destination brand experience across the
two samples {LV sample (b ¼ .867, t ¼ 4.376, p < .0005), AC sample
(b ¼ .574, t ¼ 5.529, p < .0005)}. Destination brand experience was
hypothesized to positively affect destination brand value. The effect
was statistically significant across the samples {LV sample (b ¼ .780,
t ¼ 6.151, p < .0005), AC sample (b ¼ 1.411, t ¼ 8.764, p < .0005)}.
The results also showed that destination brand value had a statis-
tically significant effect on destination brand loyalty across the two
samples {LV sample (b ¼ 1.228, t ¼ 4.982, p < .0005), AC sample
(b ¼ .919, t ¼ 4.819, p < .0005)}. Another common finding across the
two samples is that destination brand experience did not show
a statistically significant relationship with destination brand loy-
alty. Significant pathways are indicated by heavy lines in Fig. 2.
4.5. Invariance test
The invariance test attempted to ascertain whether the mea-
surement and structural components of the alternative model
remained invariant across different destinations by using Multi-
Sample Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS (Byrne, 2001).
This test serves to construct validation of the alternative model
across destinations. Koufteros and Marcoulides (2006) noted that
measurement and/or structural components of a proposed model
may not always be invariant across samples because of differences
in sample size or sample-specific attributes.
Before conducting the invariance test, an assessment of the fit of
the alternative model was conducted on the entire data set col-
lectively. Examining the overall structural model of the total sample
(n ¼ 510) incorporated with the LV sample and AC sample showed
a good fit (c2 ¼ 35.590, p ¼ .034, c2/df ¼ 1618, TLL ¼ .989, CFI ¼ .997,
RMSEA ¼ .035). Also, hypothesized path relationships among latent
variables provided identical findings with previous analyses of LV
and AC samples. That is, significant relationships were found be-
tween destination brand awareness and destination brand expe-
rience (b ¼ .917, t ¼ 7.385, p < .0005), between destination brand
experience and destination brand value (b ¼ .798, t ¼ 10.577,
p < .0005), and between destination brand value and destination
brand loyalty (b ¼ 1.076, t ¼ 7.222, p < .0005). However, there was
no statistically significant direct relationship between destination
brand experience and destination brand loyalty.
The best-fit model for the LV sample and AC sample was chosen
as a baseline model for testing (i.e., Modela in Table 3). Sub-
sequently, more stringent constraints are placed on each sequential
step by specifying the parameters of interest to be constrained
across samples in a stepwise fashion. In the constrained model at
each step, estimates from the LV sample are fixed parameters in the
AC sample.
To determine whether the coefficients connecting the latent
constructs to the observed indicators were the same across LV and
AC, Step 1 imposed equal factor loadings. Any c2 differences be-
tween the baseline model and Step 1 indicated that the factor
loadings were invariant across LV and AC.
Subsequently, the intercept terms were constrained across the
samples to determine whether there were significant differences
226 S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

Table 3 from general marketing and focusing on products may not fully
Results of the multi-sample invariance test across destination apply to a destination context. The conclusion was that the pro-
c2 df NFI CFI RMSEA (90% CI) Dc2 Ddf posed baseline model was questionable.
Model a
141.270 67 .987 .993 .033 (.025–.041) – – Therefore, this study explored an alternative model (Fig. 2) by
Step 1 175.762 84 .983 .991 .033 (.026–.040) 34.492 17 conducting a series of measurement model and full structural
Step 2 298.648 112 .971 .982 .040 (.035–.046) 122.887* 28 model tests. A series of model tests proved that the alternative
Step 3 308.280 122 .970 .982 .039 (.034–.044) 12.022 10
model with four factors fit the two sample data sets better than the
Step 4 310.670 124 .971 .982 .038 (.033–.044) 2.39 2
Step 5 364.634 142 .965 .978 .039 (.034–.044) 56.354* 18 proposed baseline model. During the process of creating an alter-
a
nate model, a new latent variable, destination brand experience,
Baseline model: no equality constraints. Step 1 (equal factor loadings), Step 2
(Step 1 þ equal intercept terms), Step 3 (Step 2 þ equal structural weights), Step 4
emerged. Indicators of each model construct were modified and the
(Step 3 þ equal structural covariance), Step 5 (Step 4 þ equal structural residuals). full structural model-fit indices improved. Also, path weights of
*p < .0005. specified relationships between factors showed similar positive
associations across the two sets of sample data. Findings showed
between Las Vegas and Atlantic City in terms of the levels of the that destination brand experience can be considered an emerging
latent variables. A c2 difference between Step 1 and Step 2 showed concept of the destination brand equity measurement model in
mean differences in the latent variables between the Las Vegas and terms of a destination context. This is unique and different from the
Atlantic City samples, although NFI, CFI, and RMSEA values were construct that is suggested in retail brand equity measurement
acceptable. This implied that Las Vegas and Atlantic City exhibited approaches.
systematic bias on some posited factors because of different re- Destination brand experience had a positive effect on destina-
sponses to the items. tion brand value. However, destination brand experience did not
Structural coefficient equality constraints were imposed in Step influence destination brand loyalty directly. Furthermore, destina-
3 to identify which path coefficients were different for Las Vegas tion brand awareness affected destination brand experience di-
and Atlantic City. Non-significant c2 differences between Step 2 and rectly. Top-of-mind awareness can be an important predictor of
Step 3 revealed invariant path coefficients for each destination. The tourists’ destination brand experiences. However, tourists who
equality of variances and structural covariance was specified in Step have a positive experience at the destination are not necessarily
4. The c2 test showed that the variance–covariance matrix un- loyal.
derlying items of latent variables was invariant across destinations. In both the proposed and alternative models, the mediating role
In order to test for equality of variances of the residuals across Las of destination brand value in relation to destination brand loyalty is
Vegas and Atlantic City, Step 5 was estimated. While the NFI, CFI, an interesting finding that requires further investigation. Previous
and RMSEA values were acceptable, the significant c2 results destination brand studies (e.g., Konecnik & Gartner, 2007) did not
showed that residuals of the latent factors and observed variables include brand value as a main dimension of a customer-based
are not completely invariant across the two considered destina- brand equity model.
tions. This step led to a deterioration of the fit as compared with Tests of model invariance, as indicated in Table 3, represent an
Step 4. However, this last step is the most restrictive invariance test. approach to construct validation. In practical terms, the hypothe-
Multi-sample structural equation modeling testing revealed sized model was well represented. Although the chi-square was
that the alternative model was largely invariant for Las Vegas and statistically significant in some steps, the other fit indices were
Atlantic City. While the model was acceptable, it is important to good: NFI and CFI greater than .93 and RMSEA of .08 and smaller.
note that sample-specific measurement items should be developed Generally, tested models in each step proved to be applicable,
when the customer-based brand equity applies across the different suggesting that factor loadings, variances, and factor residuals were
destination environments. mostly sample-specific.
This study offers enhanced insight into how tourists perceive
5. Discussion and conclusions a destination brand, indicating that a respecification of the desti-
nation brand measurement model, free from the established re-
This empirical study began with the recognition of the limita- lationships in the marketing literature (i.e., relationships among
tions of research on the evaluation of destination brands. Important awareness, image, quality, value, and loyalty), needs to be de-
assumptions for destination brand measurement emerged through veloped. As evidenced in this study, the new construct, destination
a review of the broad literature in this area. Specifically measure- brand experience, is meaningful.
ment assumptions included: (1) a destination brand could be The findings in this study can be discussed by comparing and
measured by employing the concept of customer-based brand eq- contrasting related studies. Konecnik and Gartner (2007) applied
uity; (2) destination brands should be evaluated by comparison the concept of customer-based brand equity to evaluate the tourist
with other competitive destination(s) in the same destination destination of Slovenia for the German and Croatian markets. Al-
brand category; (3) the destinations should be well-known and though it is impossible to use absolute comparisons between the
popular among tourists; and (4) tourists must have experienced the present study and Konecnik and Gartner (2007), because this study
destinations as tourists. These assumptions distinguish the unique began with the assumptions presented in the earlier discussion, it is
characteristics of destination brand measurement from destination similar in light of the choice of dimensions in customer-based
evaluation. brand equity. However, though Konecnik and Gartner (2007) in-
Following the assumptions, a customer-based brand equity cluded awareness, image, quality, and loyalty dimensions in the
model was tested in a destination context and the five-factor model, they applied the brand concept in the extension line of
structure in the proposed model was examined using confirmatory destination image studies. That is, the generally accepted three
factor analysis for the Las Vegas and Atlantic City samples because image types (i.e., cognitive, affective, and conative) were elaborated
both Las Vegas and Atlantic City are well-known and are compet- in creating brand equity for a destination brand in their study. They
itive casino gaming destinations among tourists. support the importance of an image dimension in the brand equity
The proposed baseline model was acceptable despite a signifi- model. This present study supports the important role of image in
cant chi-square. However, path coefficients among the factors the brand equity model, in that destination brand image was
suggested conflicting findings across the two samples. It could be identified as a key correlate of destination brand loyalty in the
interpreted that the customer-based brand equity model drawn proposed model.
 S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231
The importance of image in Konecnik and Gartner (2007) makes
sense because the image concept of Slovenia is prior to the brand
concept for foreign markets (i.e., German and Croatian markets), in
particular, for general but heterogeneous groups. In the same vein,
this present study tested the model for domestic tourists who have
already experienced the casino gaming destinations. That might be
the reason why value dimension was more critical to tourists’ loy-
alty than image because the image of the destination is over-
shadowed by visitor experiences. Accordingly, it is reasonable that
the destination brand experience is a critical factor in the present
study.
The findings in the proposed model indicated that tourists’
image congruence with a destination was an important influential
factor in destination loyalty. This also supports Sirgy (1995), Sirgy
and Johar (1999), and Sirgy and Su (2000) in that, if a brand image is
perceived as similar to the customer’s self-image in terms of per-
sonality attributes, then customers tend to have favorable attitudes
toward the brand when making purchasing decisions. Therefore,
tourists’ perceptions of self-image can be used to identify loyal
destination brand customers. The findings of this study also sup-
port Mader, Huber, and Herrmann (2000) in that customers’ brand
loyalty was influenced by perceiving their self-concept. In tourism
and hospitality the findings support Back’s (2005) positive re-
lationship between self-image and brand loyalty in the lodging
industry. Based on this line of reasoning, the findings lend support
to Todd (2001), in that the tourist’s self-concept will affect the
choice of the tourism product to be consumed.
This study also supports the importance of brand value. In the
model of perceived value by Dodds et al. (1991), conceptualization
is linked with the brand of destination. This means that, just as
product attributes accompany perceived value in marketing, so
destination attributes go along with perceived value as the key
criteria in destination brand loyalty. Specifically, the mediating role
of destination brand value, between destination brand experience
and destination brand loyalty, was significant in this study.
There are several unique features of the present study. This
study revealed four factors (i.e., DBA, DBEX, DBV, and DBL) of
destination brand measurement from a tourist’s perspective. The
alternative model with the four dimensions was developed by
adapting the concept of customer-based brand equity to a destina-
tion. The alternative model fit was good across destinations, and
the significant direction of path relationship among the four di-
mensions was exactly matched across destinations. A multi-sample
invariance test was employed as a strategy to ensure construct
validation of the alternative model. This study suggests that ex-
amining measurement and/or structural invariance in developing
a destination brand model would be worthwhile.
In the alternative model, destination brand value which was
derived from the destination brand experience should be consid-
ered to improve the perception of destination brand loyalty. This
points to the need for tourism managers to examine destination
brand value more closely, especially the factors that affect the for-
mation of destination brand loyalty for repeat visitors. Respondents
had experienced these destinations. Therefore, the model can be
used to elicit favorable revisit behavior by creating destination
brand loyalty.
The results derived from this study can also provide tourism
managers with insights into brand-building endeavors. In particu-
lar, by examining Internet users’ perceptions, managers will be able
to build potential tourists’ destination brand loyalty that results in
revisit behavior. There should be an attempt to understand the
different influences of destination brand experience and destina-
tion brand value.
Also, the findings provide some practical implications for casino
operators. The results of the present study suggest that casino
operators should develop marketing strategies that continuously
227
monitor visitors’ perceptions of a casino’s brand image. Selective
target marketing should be carefully considered when using
a casino’s own brand image because people may think that casino
images and destination images are identical. As mentioned by Sirgy
and Su (2000), creating and managing an appropriate destination
image and destination personality has become vital for effective
positioning. This study suggests that destination marketers, along
with casino operators, should develop promotional campaigns that
emphasize the distinctive characteristics and attractive elements of
tourism destinations, based on the components of visitors’ self-
image. Furthermore, the image traits should fully reflect the unique
characteristics that differentiate an operation from its competitors.
It is important for managers to analyze the different dimensions
that make up destination brand equity. Insights into the impor-
tance of the dimensions allow tourism managers to increase their
saliency for targeted visitors. This, in turn, allows the identification
of destination brands that compete against other destinations from
a tourist perspective. This strategy enables managers to evaluate
the competitive position of their brand and consider its uniqueness
and superiority. In terms of promotional strategy, it provides brand
managers with the information necessary for successfully tailoring
brands to market segments by communicating the particular ben-
efits that customers within a segment seek.
The present study has certain limitations that need to be taken
into account when considering the study and its contributions.
Multi-sample invariance tests suggested that that there might be
an item bias across the Las Vegas and the Atlantic City samples in
the scale refinement procedures, although the tested steps were
statistically acceptable. Measurement fit across the two samples
indicated an incorrect specification of the model as well as prob-
lems relating to the measurement of the variables. Every destina-
tion has unique characteristics and different environments.
Consequently, constructs in the destination brand equity model
should be developed to measure its operation and management
across destinations. Also, this indicates that the scale items from
marketing should address the characteristics of destinations, in-
cluding the physical, environmental, and socio-cultural features.
The applicability of the suggested 21 measurement items is
limited only to gambling destinations rather than other types of
destinations. Because indicators to measure a latent structure can
represent each destination uniquely and differently, this study ex-
cluded possible differences of destination characteristics. However,
it was difficult to separate the destination characteristics from the
casino gaming destination characteristics. In addition, due to initial
items extracted from the Las Vegas visitor sample through the
pretests, the main test may inappropriately represent the other
destination, Atlantic City.
Given the problems of Internet coverage of the general pop-
ulation and the difficulty of drawing probability samples for In-
ternet-based surveys (Couper, 2001), the results of this study
should be generalized with caution. The sample selection was
limited because the subjects of this study were members of sur-
veysampling.com. Also, there is the inability to generalize the
findings because of non-response checks. This study examined the
relationships rather than identifying population parameters. Fur-
thermore, because only people who have an interest in the survey
topic responded, a self-selection and selective dropout may have
led to a sample already interested in the topic of destination brand.
In addition, respondents’ familiarity level and past visitation would
influence the nature of relationships among the variables.
Online panel sampling itself has limitations when psychometric
approaches are applied. Therefore, the psychometric support for
this measure needs to be expanded to include additional evidence
of reliability and validity. Although this study demonstrated ac-
ceptable internal consistency for destination brand dimensions, the
stability of these constructs needs to be examined. A more
228 S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231

complete measure of destination brands would be on a tourist-by- (continued)

tourist basis using in-depth interviews to elicit an unbiased picture Strongly Strongly
of a tourist’s perception of a destination. disagree agree
The cross-sectional nature of this study precluded inferences Visiting this destination is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
among the latent variables and was concurrently measured. The a good deal
specified theoretical model was only one plausible model of the I enjoy visiting this destination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This destination has reasonable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
data, and the direction of the paths was theoretical. Basically, this
prices
study focused specifically on the factors related to destination This destination provides 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
brand equity. It is likely that other important influences on exog- quality experiences
enous variables would contribute to the prediction of endogenous
variables. Therefore, a customer-based brand equity model in
conjunction with dynamic measurement should be explored in
future studies. Nevertheless, within the limitations of this study, II. Please response to the following
the findings provide important information that could be used to
examine the nature of destination branding. An extension of this 1. How many times did you visit Atlantic City to gamble?
research is needed to validate the findings. (_________)
2. Did you visit Atlantic City in past six months to gamble?
, Yes
Destination Brand: Atlantic City
, No
3. Do you likely to visit to Atlantic City again within six months to
I. The following questions intend to measure your perception of
gamble?
the gambling destination, Atlantic City. Using the scale below,
, Yes
where ‘‘1’’ means ‘‘Strongly disagree’’ and ‘‘7’’ means ‘‘Strongly
, No
agree,’’ Please select only one response for each statement.
, I don’t know
4. What is your gender?
Strongly Strongly
, Male
disagree agree , Female
This destination has a good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. What age group are you in?
name & reputation , Twenties
The characteristics of this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , Thirties
destination come to , Forties
my mind quickly
My friends would think 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
, Fifties
highly of me if I visited , Sixties
this destination , Above seventies
This destination provides 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Please indicate your educational level:
tourism offerings of
, No college
consistent quality
Visiting this destination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , Some college / associate degree
is economical , Bachelors degree
This destination would be my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , Post bachelor’s degree
preferred choice for 7. Please indicate your martial status
a vacation
I would advise other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
, Single (never married)
to visit this destination , Single (divorced, separated, or widowed)
The costs of visiting this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , Married
destination are , Other
a bargain relative to
8. Please indicate your annual household income before taxes
the benefits I receive
Considering what I would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , Under $35,000
pay for a trip, I will get , $35,001w$ 55,000
much more than my , $55,001w$75,000
money’s worth by , $75,001w$95,000
visiting this destination
From this destination’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
, Over $95,000
offerings, I can expect 9. Please indicate your ethnicity?
superior performance , African American
The image of this destination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , American Indian or Alaskan native
is consistent with my
, Asian
own self-image
This destination is very famous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , Asian American
The destination performs better 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , Caucasian
than other similar , Hispanic
destinations , Native Hawaiian or other Pacific islander
This destination fits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
, Other
my personality
Overall, I am loyal to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. What is your home zip code? (_________)
this destination
When I am thinking about 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
gaming, this destination
comes to my mind Destination Brand: Las Vegas
immediately
Visiting this destination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I. The following questions intend to measure your perception of
reflects who I am
the gambling destination, Las Vegas. Using the scale below, where
 S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231 229

‘‘1’’ means ‘‘Strongly disagree’’ and ‘‘7’’ means ‘‘Strongly agree,’’ , Bachelors degree
Please select only one response for each statement. , Post bachelor’s degree
7. Please indicate your martial status
Strongly Strongly , Single (never married)
disagree agree , Single (divorced, separated, or widowed)
Considering what I would pay for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , Married
a trip, I will get much more than , Other
my money’s worth by visiting this
8. Please indicate your annual household income before taxes
destination
From this destination’s offerings, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , Under $35,000
can expect superior performance , $35,001w$ 55,000
I enjoy visiting this destination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , $55,001w$75,000
I would advise other people to visit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
, $75,001w$95,000
this destination
My friends would think highly of me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
, Over $95,000
if I visited this destination 9. Please indicate your ethnicity?
Overall, I am loyal to this destination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , African American
The characteristics of this destination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , American Indian or Alaskan native
come to my mind quickly
, Asian
The costs of visiting this destination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
are a bargain relative to the , Asian American
benefits I receive , Caucasian
This destination has reasonable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , Hispanic
prices , Native Hawaiian or other Pacific islander
The image of this destination is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
consistent with my own self-image
, Other
When I am thinking about gaming, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. What is your home zip code? (_________)
this destination comes to my mind
immediately
This destination has a good name & 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
reputation References
The destination performs better than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
other similar destinations Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press.
This destination is very famous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.
Visiting this destination is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ambler, T. (1997). How much of brand equity is explained by trust? Management
Decision, 35(4), 283–292.
economical
Ambler, T., Bhattacharya, C. B., Edell, J., Keller, K. L., Lemon, K. L., & Mittal, V. (2002).
This destination provides tourism 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Relating brand and customer perspectives on marketing management. Journal
offerings of consistent quality
of Service Research, 5(1), 13–25.
This destination would be my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice:
preferred choice for a vacation a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103,
Visiting this destination is a good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 411–423.
deal Arnett, D. B., Laverie, D. A., & Meiers, A. (2003). Developing parsimonious retailer
This destination provides quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 equity indexes using partial least squares analysis: a method and applications.
experiences Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 161–170.
Visiting this destination reflects who 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Back, K. J. (2005). The effects of image congruence on customers’ brand loyalty in
I am the upper middle-class hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
This destination fits my personality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29(4), 448–467.
Back, K.-J., & Parks, S. C. (2003). A brand loyalty model involving cognitive, affective,
and conative brand loyalty and customer satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research, 27(4), 419–435.
II. Please response to the following
Baloglu, S. (2001). An investigation of a loyalty typology and the multidestination
loyalty of international travelers. Tourism Analysis, 6, 41–52.
1. How many times did you visit Las Vegas to gamble? Baloglu, S. (2002). Dimensions of customer loyalty: separating friends from well
wishers. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43, 47–59.
(_________)
Baloglu, S., & Erickson, R. E. (1998). Destination loyalty and switching behavior of
2. Did you visit Las Vegas in past six months to gamble? travelers: a Markow analysis. Tourism Analysis, 2, 119–127.
, Yes Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation.
, No Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 868–897.
Barrows, C. W., Latuuca, F. P., & Bosselmanc, R. H. (1989). Influence of restaurant
3. Do you likely to visit to Las Vegas again within six months to reviews upon consumers. FIU Hospitality Review, 7(2), 84–92.
gamble? Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer
, Yes susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,
473–481.
, No Belén del Rı́o, A., Vázquez, R., & Iglesias, V. (2001). The effect of brand associations
, I don’t know on consumer response. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(5), 410–425.
4. What is your gender? Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,
15, 139–168.
, Male Belonax, J. J., & Javalgi, R. G. (1989). The influence of involvement and product class
, Female quality of consumer choice sets. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 17(3),
5. What age group are you in? 209–216.
Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of
, Twenties
Marketing Science, 28(1), 128–137.
, Thirties Bhat, S., & Reddy, S. K. (1998). Symbolic and functional positioning of brands. Journal
, Forties of Consumer Marketing, 15(1), 32–43.
Blain, C., Levy, S. E., & Ritchie, R. B. (2005). Destination branding: insights and
, Fifties
practices from destination management organizations. Journal of Travel Re-
, Sixties search, 43, 328–338.
, Above seventies Blanthorne, C., Jones-Faremer, L. A., & Almer, E. D. (2006). Why you should consider
6. Please indicate your educational level: SEM: a guide getting started. Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, 9,
179–207.
, No college Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism
, Some college / associate degree Management, 21(1), 97–116.
230 S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, appli-
cations, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cai, L. A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29(3), 720–742.
de Chernatony, L., & McDonald, M. (2003). Creating powerful brands in consumer
service and industrial markets (3rd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
de Chernatony, L., & Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1998). Defining a brand: beyond the liter-
ature with experts’ interpretations. Journal of Marketing Management, 14(5),
417–443.
Chiou, J. (2004). The antecedents of consumers’ loyalty toward Internet service
providers. Information and Management, 41, 685–695.
Clifton, R. (2003). The future of brands. In R. Clifton (Ed.), Brands and branding (pp.
227–241). New York, NY: Bloomberg Press.
Couper, M. P. (2001). The promise and perils of Web surveys. In A. Westlake (Ed.),
The challenge of the Internet (pp. 35–36). London: Association for Survey
Computing.
Cretu, A. E., & Brodie, R. J. (2007). The influence of brand image and company
reputation where manufacturers market to small firms: a customer value per-
spective. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(2), 230–240.
Crimmins, J. C. (2000). Better measurement and management of brand value.
Journal of Advertising Research, 40(6), 136–144.
Day, E., & Crask, M. R. (2000). Value assessment: the antecedent of customer sat-
isfaction. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, 13, 53–59.
Dennis, J. M. (2001). Are Internet panels creating professional respondents? Mar-
keting Research, 13(2), 34–38.
Deslandes, D. D. (2003). Assessing consumer perceptions of destinations: A necessary
first step in the destination branding process. (doctoral dissertation). The Florida
State University.
Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990). In search of brand image: a foundation analysis.
In M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R. W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in consumer research,
Vol. 17 (pp. 110–119). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store
information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28,
307–319.
Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2003). Destination place identity and regional tourism
policy. Tourism Geographies, 5(4), 383–407.
Edwards, J., Fernandes, C., Fox, J., & Vaughan, R. (2000). Tourism brand attributes of
the Alto Minho, Portugal. In G. Richards, & D. Hall (Eds.), Tourism and sustainable
community development (pp. 285–296). New York: Routledge.
Flint, J. D., Woodruff, B. R., & Gardial, F. S. (2002). Exploring the phenomenon of
customers’ desired value change in a business-to-business context. Journal of
Marketing, 66, 102–117.
Ford, K. (2005). Brands laid bare: Using market research for evidence-based brand
management. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
Gnoth, J. (1998). Branding tourism destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3),
758–760.
Gnoth, J. (2002). Leveraging export brands through a tourism destination brand.
Brand Management, 9(4/5), 262–280.
Grace, D., & O’Cass, A. (2005). Service branding: consumer verdicts on service
brands. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(2), 125–139.
Grewal, D., Levy, M., & Lehmann, D. R. (2004). Retail branding and customer loyalty:
an overview. Journal of Retailing, 80, 9–13.
Gyimothy, S. (n.d.). Branding in tourism and hospitality management Institute for
Service Management. Lunds University. Retrieved October 11, 2005 from http://
www.humsamf.auc.dk/edu/snf/turime/.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hall, D. (2002). Brand development, tourism and national identity; the re-imaging
of former Yugoslavia. Brand Management, 9(4/5), 323–334.
Hall, J., Robertson, N., & Shaw, M. (2001). An investigation of perceived value and
consumable goods. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 42(2), 23–31.
Hankinson, G. (2004). Relational network brands: towards a conceptual model of
place brands. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 109–121.
Hankinson, G. (2005). Destination brand images: a business tourism perspective.
Journal of Services Marketing, 19(1), 24–32.
d’Hauteserre, A. M. (2001). Destination branding in a hostile environment. Journal
of Travel Research, 39, 200–207.
Hem, L. E., & Iversen, N. M. (2004). How to develop a destination brand logo:
a qualitative and quantitative approach. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism, 4(2), 83–106.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2006). Destination image and destination per-
sonality: an application of branding theories to tourism places. Journal of
Business Research, 59, 638–642.
Jago, L., Chalip, L., Brown, G., Mules, T., & Ali, S. (2003). Building events into desti-
nation branding: insights from experts. Event Management, 8(1), 3–14.
Jayanti, R. K., & Ghosh, A. K. (1996). A structural analysis of value, quality, and price
perceptions of business and leisure travelers. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 45–51.
Kapferer, J. N. (1997). Strategic brand management: Creating and sustaining brand
equity long term (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page Limited.
Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2003). Destination branding: concept and measurement.
<http:www.tourismcenter.msu.edu>. Accessed 15.01.05.
Keeter, S. (2005). Survey research. In D. Druckman (Ed.), Doing research: Methods of
inquiry for conflict analysis (pp. 123–165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing
brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kim, H. B., & Kim, W. G. (2005). The relationship between brand equity and firms’
performance in luxury hotels and chain restaurant. Tourism Management, 26,
549–560.
Klassen, R. D., & Jacobs, J. (2001). Experimental comparison of Web, electronic and
mail survey technologies in operations management. Journal of Operations
Management, 19(6), 713–728.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).
New York: Guilford Press.
Knowles, J. (2001). The role of brands in business. In J. Goodchild, & C. Callow (Eds.),
Brands: Visions and values (pp. 21–90). Chichester: England, John Wiley and
Sons.
Konecnik, M., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Customer-based brand equity for a destina-
tion. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2), 400–421.
Kotler, P. (1988). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation, and
control (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Koufteros, X., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). Product development practices and
performance: a structural equation modeling-based multi-group analysis. In-
ternational Journal of Production Economic, 103(1), 286–307.
Kwun, J. W., & Oh, H. (2004). Effects of brand, price, and risk on customers’ value
perceptions and behavioral intentions in the restaurant industry. Journal of
Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 11(1), 31–49.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 11–19.
Laws, E. (1995). Tourist destination management: Issues, analysis and policies. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Lee, J., & Back, K. (2008). Attendee-based brand equity. Tourism Management, 29(2),
331–344.
Leuthesser, L., Kohli, Ch., & Harich, K. (1995). Brand equity: the halo effect measure.
Journal of Marketing, 29, 57–66.
Lindermann, J. (2004). Brand valuation. In R. Clifton (Ed.), Brands and branding (pp.
27–45). New York, NY: Bloomberg Press.
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Long, M. M., & Schiffman, L. G. (2000). Consumption values and relationships:
segmenting the market for frequency programs. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
17(3), 214–232.
Low, G. S., & Lamb, C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand
associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(6), 350–368.
Mader, R., Huber, F., & Herrmann, A. (2000). The contribution of the brand
personality construct to explain brand loyalty behavior – findings of a causal–
analytical study. Proceedings of the Annual European Academy of Marketing
Conference. Rotterdam: Erasmus University.
Martinez, E., & de Chernatony, L. (2004). The effect of brand extension strategies
upon brand image. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(1), 39–50.
McIntyre, G. (1993). Sustainable tourism development: Guide for local planners. Ma-
drid: World Tourism Organization.
Michell, P., King, J., & Reast, J. (2001). Brand values related to industrial products.
Industrial Marketing Management, 30(5), 415–425.
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2002). New Zealand, 100% pure. The creation
of a powerful niche destination brand. Brand Management, 9(4/5), 335–354.
Motameni, R., & Shahrokhi, M. (1998). Brand equity valuation: a global perspective.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 7(4), 275–290.
Murphy, J. (1998). What is branding? In S. Hart, & J. Murphy (Eds.), Brands: The new
wealth creator (pp. 1–12) New York: New York University Press.
Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. P., & Smith, B. (2000). The distinction product & its impact
on traveler perceptions. Tourism Management, 21, 43–52.
Nininen, O., & Riley, M. (2004). Towards the conceptualization of tourism destina-
tion loyalty. Tourism Analysis, 8, 243–246.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Odin, Y., Odin, N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2001). Conceptual & operational aspects of
brand loyalty: an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 53,
75–84.
Oh, H. (2000). Diner’s perceptions of quality, value, & satisfaction. Cornell Hotel &
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 58–66.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents & consequences of sat-
isfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–469.
Ooi, C.-S. (2004). Poetics & politics of destination branding: Denmark. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism, 4(2), 107–128.
Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research,
39(1), 78–84.
Papadopoulos, N., & Heslop, L. (2002). Country equity & country branding: prob-
lems & prospects. Brand Management, 9(4/5), 294–314.
Pappu, R., & Quester, P. (2006). A consumer-based method for retailer equity
measurement: results of an empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 13(5), 317–329.
Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2005). Consumer-based brand equity:
improving the measurement – empirical evidence. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 14(3), 143–154.
Parasuraman, A. (1997). Reflections on gaining competitive advantage through
customer value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 154–161.
Park, C. S., & Srinivasan, V. (1994). A survey-based method for measuring & un-
derstanding brand equity & its extendibility. Journal of Marketing Research,
31(2), 271–288.
Patterson, M. (1999). Re-appraising the concept of brand image. Journal of Brand
Management, 6(6), 409–426.
 S. Boo et al. / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 219–231
Petrick, J. F., Backman, S. J., & Bixler, R. (1999). An investigation of selected factors
effect on golfer satisfaction & perceived value. Journal of Park & Recreation
Administration, 17(1), 40–59.
Phau, I., & Lau, K. C. (2000). Conceptualizing brand personality: a review & research
propositions. Journal of Targeting, Measurement & Analysis for Marketing, 9(1),
52–69.
Pike, S. (2004). Destination marketing organizations. Advances in tourism research
series. New York: Elsevier.
Pike, S. (2005). Tourism destination branding complexity. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 14(4), 258–259.
Pitt, L. F., Opoku, R., Hultman, M., Abratt, R., & Spyropoulou, S. (2007). What I say
about myself: communication of brand personality by African countries. Tour-
ism Management, 28, 835–844.
Prasad, K., & Dev, C. S. (2000). Managing hotel brand equity: a customer-centric
framework for assessing performance. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 41(3), 22–31.
Prebensen, N. K. (2007). Exploring tourists’ images of a distant destination. Tourism
Management, 28, 747–756.
Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. J. (2001). Culture, identity & tourism representation:
marketing Cymru of Wales? Tourism Management, 22, 167–179.
Reis, H. T., & Judd, C. M. (2000). Handbook of research methods in social & personality
psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rigdon, E. E. (1995). A necessary & sufficient identification rule for structural
models estimated in practice. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 359–383.
Ringer, G. (1998). Destinations: Cultural landscapes of tourism. London: Routledge.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Ritchie, R. J. B. (1998). The branding of tourism destinations: past
achievements & future challenges. Marrakech, Morocco: Annual Congress of the
International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism.
Shah, R., & Goldstein, S. M. (2006). Use of structural equation modeling in opera-
tions management research: looking back & forward. Journal of Operations
Management, 24(2), 148–169.
Simon, C. J., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The measurement & determinants of brand
equity: a financial approach. Marketing Science, 12(1), 28–52.
Sirgy, M. J. (1995). Self-image/product image congruity & consumer decision
making. International Journal of Management, 2(4), 49–63.
Sirgy, M. J., & Johar, J. S. (1999). Toward an integrated model of self-congruity &
functional congruity. European Advances in Consumer Research, 4, 252–256.
Sirgy, M. J., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image, self-congruity, & travel behavior:
toward an integrative model. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 340–352.
Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J., Chon, K. S., Claiborne, C. B., Johar, J.
S., & Berkman, H. (1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of
measuring self-Image congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
25(3), 229–241.
Sivakumar, K., & Raj, S. P. (1997). Quality tier competition: how price change in-
fluences brand choice & category choice. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 71–84.
Solomon, M. R. (1999). Consumer behavior (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pren-
tice-Hall.
231
Sweeney, J., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: the development of
a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220.
Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). The role of perceived risk in the
quality-value relationship: a study in a retail environment. Journal of Retailing,
75(1), 77–105.
Tabachinick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Tasci, A. D. A., Gartner, W. C., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2007). Measurement of destination
brand bias using a quasi-experimental design. Tourism Management, 28(6),
1529–1540.
Teas, R. K., & Laczniak, R. N. (2004). Measurement process context effects in em-
pirical tests of causal models. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 162–174.
Todd, S. (2001). Self-concept: a tourism application. Journal of Consumer Behavior,
1(2), 184–196.
Tsai, S. (2005). Utility, cultural symbolism & emotion: a comprehensive model of
brand purchase value. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22,
277–291.
Upshaw, L. (1995). Building brand identity: A strategy for success in a hostile market
place. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Vazquez, R., Belén del Rı́o, A., & Iglesias, V. (2002). Consumer-based brand equity:
development and validation of a measurement instrument. Journal of Marketing
Management, 18, 27–48.
Ward, S., Light, L., & Goldstein, J. (1999). What high-tech managers need to know
about brand. Harvard Business Review, July–August, 85–95.
Washburn, J. H., & Plank, R. E. (2002). Measuring brand equity: an evaluation of
a consumer based brand equity scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
Winter 46–62.
Webster, F. E., Jr. (2000). Understanding the relationships among brands, con-
sumers, & resellers. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 17–23.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-
normal variables: problems & remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation
modeling: Concepts, issues, & applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Williams, P. W., Gill, A. M., & Chura, N. (2004). Branding mountain destinations: the
battle for ‘‘placefulness. Tourism Review, 59(1), 6–15.
Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139–153.
Woodside, A. G., Cruickshank, B. F., & Dehuang, N. (2007). Stories visitors tell about
Italian cities as destination icons. Tourism Management, 28, 162–174.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing & validating a multidimensional consumer
based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52, 1–14.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix
elements & brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 258–270.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perception of price, quality, & value: a means-end
model & synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
Zins, A. H. (2001). Relative attitudes & commitment in customer loyalty models:
some experiences in the commercial airline industry. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 12(3/4), 269–294.