Leveraging export brands through a

tourism destination brand

Received (in revised form): 9th January, 2002

JUERGEN GNOTH
is a senior lecturer in the Department of Marketing, University of Otago, New Zealand. His interests lie in the
area of consumer behaviour, especially tourism behaviour, destination marketing, cross-cultural research and
marketing ethics. His specific interests are in the area of destination branding, motivations, emotions and
intention formation.

Abstract
This study presents a theoretical and practical model of how the development of a country as a
tourism destination brand creates leverage for its products and services in export markets. To effect
this leverage, it is essential to conceptualise the tourism system as a network of interacting service
providers rather than as a channel of distribution. This aids in the management of the multiplexity
of interactions between tourists and the destination’s products and services that affect the
development and success of the brand in leveraging export products. The theoretical models of the
tourism system, the tourism product (experience) and country brand are operationalised and fused
so that a detailed process emerges which describes how the brand can link the tourism experience
with the products and services that facilitate it. The systematic management of this facilitation
process permits a gradual extension of the tourism brand attributes to other products and services
destined for export in four stages.

INTRODUCTION unique opportunity to showcase their

Dr Juergen Gnoth
Department of Marketing,
University of Otago, PO Box 56,
New Zealand
The extant literature on branding in
relation to the country of origin of
products1 is a reflection of the potential
of a country to function as an umbrella
brand. This potential is a result of its
power to boost recognition, exposure
and credibility of national brands in
international markets by generating
synergies that favourably enhance con-
sumers’ purchase decisions. In this
context of identifying and managing
means of leverage,2 tourism, a major
export industry, has received little
attention. Rather than revisiting the
issues surrounding brands and country
of origin, this paper discusses oppor-
tunities that arise from the country as
an international tourism destination
brand and how it can leverage national
products and services to visitors, con-
vince them of their quality and
benefits, and turn these tourists into
customers of their products in the
respective overseas markets once they
have returned home. The lack of
examples of countries making full use
of this opportunity must be taken as
evidence that this process is not as
straightforward as it may appear at first
glance. Indeed, as far as could be
ascertained by this author, there is no
literature available that would develop
or describe a systematic approach of
leveraging export products through
the tourism market. While there are
instances of collaboration, such as
those between Austrian or French ski
equipment manufacturers and tourism

Tel: ⫹64 3 479 8446;

brands. managers of sporting events at destina-
Fax: ⫹64 3 479 8172; Producers in countries with an tions, these are only tentative or
E-mail: jgnoth@business.
otago.ac.nz international tourism industry have the isolated examples of alliances. There

262 䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
 LEVERAGING EXPORT BRANDS THROUGH A TOURISM DESTINATION BOARD
are no strategic models available that
would systematically link a country as
a tourism destination brand to the
products and services designed for
export, in order to create synergies and
leverage in foreign markets. The reason
can be found in both the relative
novelty and structural idiosyncrasies of
the tourism industry and its complexity,
which combine to create seemingly
insurmountable problems for interested
exporters.
On the one hand, the discussion of
whether tourism is indeed an industry
in the traditional sense, so vehemently
debated by Neil Leiper and Steven
Smith,3 is still ongoing and disadvan-
taging the industry’s development as an
export industry (for example, un-
like other export industries, tourism
operators serving international tourists
are not exempted from value-added
taxes, thus discouraging more intensive
efforts to integrate and optimise in-
dustry structures and activities). On the
other, there is no one single producer
or tourism service provider responsible
for the total tourism product — that
is, the tourism experience. (Package
tourism providers may be considered
an exception, but even in these
cases the provider tries desperately
to accommodate the increasing trend
towards free and independent tourism
by offering increasingly more flexible,
modularised holiday packages from
which tourists can assemble the par-
ticular kind of service they require.)
The complexity of this experience
encompasses everything from trip plan-
ning to departure, sojourn and return
home. The complexity further in-
creases through the non-traditional
manner of its production by distinct
but disparate service providers who
often do not even know each other, as
䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
may be common in traditional channels
of distribution. All of these features
have prevented a conceptualisation of
using a tourism destination brand to
leverage export products.
To this end, the contribution of the
present study lies with the integration
of a detailed analysis and description of
the tourism industry as a system, the
integrative role of the tourist within it,
and how the features of the tourism
experience line up with those of
tourism services and brands. This
essential analysis then leads to a
tiered, practical model of developing a
destination brand: first, around the
attraction that exerts the pull to
the destination, followed secondly by
branding the essential tourism serv-
ices that facilitate the experience of
the destination. Some examples from
France and New Zealand are then
created around the second and third
level of brand development. The third
level of brand extension branches out
into non-tourism and other export
industries that support the tourism
facilitation through primary and secon-
dary products. Lastly, the fourth level
of brand development extends the
brand to a country’s other products and
services, whose producers may wish to
join and leverage the image export
markets have of the country as brand.
Each level of brand extension is fraught
with its own problems.
At the basis of their solution lies
the detailed analysis and understanding
of the interactions between the com-
ponents of the tourism system, ex-
periences, services and brands. To reach
a solution, the present study maintains
a network approach.4 It can help obtain
the structural clarity of the components
for a managed approach to the integra-
tion and construction of a suitable
263
GNOTH
branding model that facilitates leverage
for exporters.
THE SYSTEM OF TOURISM:
NETWORKS AND CHANNELS
Tourism and brands
The World Tourism Organisation in
Madrid, Spain, defines tourism as the
activity of people who are leaving their
home for more than 24 hours to stay
at a destination for leisure or recreation
before they return home. In general,
the lack of attention paid to tourism
as a source for country branding is
surprising given that, for a consider-
able time now, all economic indicators
show that tourism has developed to be
a promising industry for many nations
which have either embraced it or have
tourism potential. The total demand
for tourism worldwide for 2001 has
been estimated at US$4,495.5bn. It is
expected to contribute 4.2 per cent
to the world’s gross domestic product
and employs one in every 12.2 per-
sons, which should grow to one in
every 11.2 jobs by 2011.5 The growing
importance of the industry and its
potential to expose large numbers of
visitors to a country’s achievements
strongly suggest benefits that derive
from an analysis of the links between
‘country’ as tourism destination, the
export economy and brands.
Tourism is characterised by a rather
confusing complexity.6 There are a
number of generic industries that
generate the tourism product but,
other than in highly packaged tourism
products, rarely do we discern a clear
marketing and distribution channel.
Increasingly, one finds the tourist to be
taking on the role of ‘quasi-chan-
nel captain’: as the tourist travels,
264 䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
s/he chooses the operators of serv-
ices, and thereby creates the channel.
These structural phenomena — mul-
tiple producers of a heterogeneous
service, and the consumer as channel
captain — are the main reasons why
it appears difficult for any national
tourism industry to develop a branding
exercise, especially since it requires a
high amount of managed cohesion
among product elements (eg the equiv-
alence of quality standards between,
say, transport and accommodation).
Similarly, branding also requires a high
level of control over brand attributes,
their communication and management.
Consequently, if management struc-
tures are confusing, other producers
from primary and secondary industries
would find it hard to be motivated or
realise their opportunities of using the
tourism industry to showcase their
wares and assist in systematically build-
ing the country as brand.
Managerially, the interface has two
fundamentally different dimensions: the
mechanics and dynamics of branding in
the context of export marketing to a
foreign market-place, and marketing
goods and services to tourists from that
market within the country of origin. In
the case of the foreign marketplace,
the opportunities of leveraging new
brands on the back of more estab-
lished brands have been discussed and
analysed widely.7 A subgroup of that
literature deals with how the country
brand assists in giving leverage to new
brands.8
The second dimension relates to the
export ‘industry’ of tourism itself. Its
contrasting — and most confusing —
characteristic is that the tourist comes
to the producer to consume the
export product, rather than the other
way round as is usual for export
 LEVERAGING EXPORT BRANDS THROUGH A TOURISM DESTINATION BOARD
markets. Leveraging national brands off
a country brand, while congenial as an
idea, is a complex issue. Tourists rarely
come to holiday destinations with the
intention of becoming acquainted with
that country’s export articles other than
its tourism services. In order to
motivate tourists to learn about na-
tional brands, it follows that one
needs to explore the links between
the destination, tourists’ holiday ex-
periences and export products. It
involves identifying the drivers for
synergies that can evolve between
individual tourism sectors in develop-
ing and propagating the brand and its
attributes.9 These drivers are closely
related to motivations and what the
tourist experiences during his sojourn,
and how these link in with characteris-
tics of brands.10
Countries and tourism destinations
do not lend themselves easily to
branding.11 It will always be easier to
brand individual products than nations
for the well-argued reason that the
image of a product brand is limited to
a controlled number of attributes
whereas the images of a nation tend to
be dependent on the situations in
which they are instantiated.12 O’Shaug-
nessy and O’Shaugnessy13 also write
that such images are usually fuzzy
due to the complexity of a country
or nation. Nonetheless, in principle,
the same rules for developing a
product brand apply to a country
brand: attributes need to be selected,
developed and managed. The decision
as to what attributes are chosen cannot
be solved here. Suffice it to say, it needs
to be regarded as a process that
develops and expands over time. It
involves the inclusion and considera-
tion of all stakeholders throughout the
lifetime of destination and brand.14
䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
All countries own a ‘reputational
capital’15 of one sort or another.
Building a destination brand to develop
and enhance the country as brand
involves giving particularly expressive
and affective meaning to an otherwise
mere geographic or political entity.
The brand promises ‘a memorable
travel experience that is uniquely
associated with the destination; it also
serves to consolidate and reinforce the
recollection of pleasurable memories of
the destination experience’.16
The affective relationship between a
destination experience and the brand
becomes the modus operandi for brand
development and the systematic linking
of targeted products with tourists’
experiences. In order to develop a
systematic approach to these central
issues of image and identity, and of
creating a destination brand with
leverage for export products, the
following paragraphs describe the
tourism product and how it is created.
Simultaneously, the structures of
the tourism system arise and the
groundwork is laid for how country
brands can emerge through the
association of the tourism experience
with national brands, and how tourism
can help generate loyal customers for a
country’s export products. In addition,
since success depends on an efficient
management of the branding process,
critical impediments need to be
understood.
The product
The tourism product is the holiday
experience. It differs substantially from
other products in that it relates to an
experience that is facilitated by a
number of suppliers. Together, the
suppliers form the tourism system.17
265
GNOTH
The systemic elements are transport,
accommodation, additional hospitality
services such as restaurants and/or
shops and entertainment, and attrac-
tions that exert the ‘pull’ for tourists to
come. These elements shall be referred
to as ‘essential services’. (Strictly speak-
ing, only food services are a further
essential service. However, given that
holiday tourism is hedonic, the element
of ‘entertainment’ is never far away.
From the point of view that tourists
engage in ritualistic role play when on
holiday,18 even the interaction taking
place during mealtimes in a Bud-
dhist monastery can be interpreted as
a form of ‘entertainment’.) All of
these elements have to be present
for the tourism product to come
into existence. Traditionally, these ele-
ments are ‘mere’ generic services that
have developed within the national
economy. The tourism industry only
becomes tangible when a tourist uses
these services during a holiday and the
facilitators link up to become part of
the tourist’s experience.19 As destina-
tions develop, more and more dedi-
cated tourism infrastructure appears. It
indicates an increase in trust and
commitment to the industry, paral-
leled by the need for an integrated
management model that considers the
systemics and dynamics of tourism
destinations.20 In any case, it is essential
not to lose track of the fact that the
essential products and services at a
destination all evolve from the attrac-
tions they support.
Attractions are, in general, land-
based and the reason that requires the
tourist to travel. This may mean that a
natural site or landscape is the attrac-
tion. Or it may be a man-made
structure or activity in a distinct
geographical space that draws the
266 䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
tourist to visit. Be that as it may, tourist
attractions invariably make use of a
destination’s geographical, physical and
cultural resources, either in part or in
total, as indicated in Figure 1.21 While
the attraction is the focal point, the
facilitation of the experience becomes
inseparably connected so that attraction
and services contain the pool of
attributes from which country brand
managers can choose to create the
brand. As the facilitation of the services
for experiencing the attraction involves
a complex web of interacting parts,
including both delivery and creation of
the product, the traditional channel of
distribution theory is considered insuf-
ficient and network theory is preferred.
It offers the added advantage of
assisting in the creation and manage-
ment of brand values.
The channel
There are two startling idiosyncrasies
when it comes to analysing the tourism
production process. First, although
crucial in the provision of tourism
services, service providers often act in
ignorance of each other. Secondly,
the tourist thus emerges as ‘channel
captain’ in the holiday distribution
channel. We observe that increasing
numbers of tourists travel independ-
ently and tend to use service facilitators
according to availability and motiva-
tions for travel.22 They may arrive at a
destination with the help of one airline,
but leave with another. They may
travel with a variety of transport
services through the destination, but
neither the airline nor the individual
transport company on the ground
knows who, specifically, the other
service providers are. By describing the
tourism channel, it will be shown

TRANSPORT
Figure 1 The essential elements of the tourism system
how traditional service channel models
profit from adopting concepts from
network theory.
Brands need to be managed and
controlled. It thus becomes a focal issue
as to who controls and manages a
country brand, especially if its poten-
tial national brand extensions — the
service providers together with their
potential partners from primary and
secondary industries — lack com-
munity, common vision and control.
Furthermore, the question arises as to
how to position companies strategically
and expose desired markets to products
and brands as tourists travel through
the destination, when these companies
follow a channel captain who is, at the
same time, the customer.
Superficially, we are dealing with
marketing and distribution channels:23
the tourist moves to and from the
destination and makes use of a variety
of services, all contributing to the
holiday experience. Marketing chan-
nels emerged to form ‘sets of inter-
dependent organisations involved in
the process of making a product or
service available for use or con-
sumption’.24 In tourism, the service
facilitator of, say, a bed-night often sees
his own channel as a two-step process
consisting of suppliers who, in this case,
furnish the hotel and supply con-
sumables, and the deliverer who is the
䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
LEVERAGING EXPORT BRANDS THROUGH A TOURISM DESTINATION BOARD
ATTRACTION
ACCOMMODATION HOSPITALITY
service staff member.25 Product com-
position and service delivery are under
the operator’s control. In addition, this
particular service may also include
good advice and recommendations or
even inducements to the tourist of
future accommodation and attractions
‘further down the road’. However, to
all intents and purposes, the service, the
responsibility for and the contact with
tourists end as soon as they have left
the premises.
For the tourist, however, the facilita-
tion of this bed-night was only one
part of a large number of service
encounters the tourist requires to satisfy
his motivations to travel. We may
thus view a string of accommodation
providers who service the tourists’
needs on their journey as a marketing
channel of sorts. Alas, concepts and
structures supplied by the channel
literature become less helpful once we
acknowledge that service providers
from other industries, such as transport
and hospitality providers, need to be
included too: first, as channel members,
secondly, as channels in their own
rights with a clearly differentiated
service, and thirdly, as competitors.
The apparently diminishing useful-
ness of the existing channel litera-
ture derives from the absence of a
channel captain in the delivery sys-
tem who, with the branding process
267
GNOTH
in mind, negotiates, coordinates and
manages brand attributes. The normal
way of achieving channel coordination
rests on the channel captain and his use
of power.26 Yet, in the case of an FIT
(free and independent tourist — the
increasingly common type of traveller),
this concept of power can hardly be
applied as it is indeed the tourist who
has become the channel captain, al-
beit without the traditional tools of
managerial power. In spite of this, the
success and competitiveness of the des-
tination as a whole depends on coor-
dinated product development and a
strategically designed country branding
process.
Ever since tourism began, a horizon-
tal and a vertical structure of facilitation
could be discerned as service operators
tried to manage their occupation rates
and loading factors. As an example of
horizontal collaboration, accommoda-
tion suppliers try to get tourists
to stay exclusively with their busi-
ness partners (eg, a chain). Simi-
larly, there is evidence for vertical
structures when accommodation and
transport operators cooperate or even
merge. Without question these various
operators can be expected to develop
complementary services with an ap-
proximate match in price, quality,
reliability etc, so as to deliver according
to tourists’ expectations and to develop
competitive advantages. Resulting ef-
ficiencies and service characteristics can
subsequently all serve in the pool of
country brand attributes, to which
this paper will return in due time.
However, what are the mechanisms
whereby such a match of service
quality attributes can occur across
destinations?
The idiosyncrasies of the tourism
production process thus create two
268 䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
complex problems that tourism
operators need to manage: first, the
issue of consistent quality and second,
the commitment to the industry. Both
issues are interrelated and form the
barrier to developing a cohesive pool
of brand attributes that tourists need to
be exposed to consistently throughout
their sojourn at the destination. The
creation of a strategy for these brand
attributes needs to be spearheaded by
the industry in conjunction with all
stakeholders, and efficient network
structures need to be formed to
accomplish this. At the same time,
while the thus created brand is shared
by all, industry members compete
often fiercely for custom and are
required to build their own
competitive brand in conjunction with
the destination brand. Network theory
can give assistance in operationalising
these apparent conflicts.
Networks
A lack of business skills among tourism
operators who tend to come from all
walks of life and industries might be
one reason for the lack of consis-
tency between various tourism serv-
ices. Generic industry structures are
another. Any lack of coordination is
not by design but evolutionary, as
each member of the tourism industry
belongs to his/her own generically
grown industry. This often involves
different training and career paths
between generic industries, different
managerial structures, communication
systems and values. In short, ‘industries’
such as transport, accommodation or
hospitality often show characteristics of
(different) communities. As far as these
industries are concerned, communities
imply diversity and depth from which
 LEVERAGING EXPORT BRANDS THROUGH A TOURISM DESTINATION BOARD
the brand can draw valuable attributes
that indicate functional qualities. At a
higher level of abstraction and to the
benefit of the brand, the notion of
community allows the tourism industry
to reflect on its origins in the culture of
its country and draw from it attributes
that define the character of its people.
Attributes such as these add to the
‘mystical’ qualities of the brand.27
According to Muniz and O’Guinn,28
a community is signified mainly by
three characteristics. Members share an
intrinsic connection to one another,
they have shared rituals and traditions
and, lastly, they share a sense of moral
responsibility — which, in the case of
tourism, comes to the fore in situations
such as industrial trouble or political
lobbying, and formulating industry
standards or ethical codes. Considering
a generic industry as analogous to a
community, the tourism industry is a
new or extended community that
requires its own new sets of com-
monality, values and moral respon-
sibility. In a way, this goes beyond what
the channel literature is designed to
accomplish. Although it deals with
these and related issues of social
conflict, a more promising research
stream to support the development of
such a new community is network
theory, which is able to include
channel theory. One of the most
powerful reasons why network theory
may be considered as more ap-
propriate in developing country as
brand leverage is that networks, like
communities, rely strongly on trust.29
Defined as a system of exchange
linkages, networks are distinguished
by ‘their density, multiplexity and
reciprocity of ties and shared value
systems defining membership roles
and responsibilities’.30 Tourism service
䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
operations thus belong to at least two
sets of networks which have hallmarks
of communities. Interactions among
members of one network, and between
networks, have been analysed further
and defined according to their type,
frequency and levels of commitment
expressed during interactions.31 By
representing the structure of the closer
external environment of businesses, it is
these networks that have an influence
on channel shape and policy and are
vital in the formation and delivery of
brand attributes within the tourism
system.
For it is only through value-
oriented, networked cooperatives and
shared vision that a tourism brand
community can evolve.32 A tourism
brand community is here understood
as a heterogeneous group of serv-
ice producers who give a sense of
homogeneity of experience to tourists
through employing the same brand
attributes during service production.
When adhered to throughout a des-
tination, these attributes become des-
tination brand attributes.
It may be added here that these
attributes need to fit the service
brands individual companies develop
for themselves. Depending on the level
of fit, the company is more or
less part of the tourism industry as
a community that tries to develop
its brand. Strengthening the ties of
these communities is therefore the
central metaphor for brand develop-
ment. Defection, non-participation or
inconsistent brand management are the
main reasons for the brand’s dilution, as
are ‘bullying tactics’ by self-styled
channel captains that have no network
but only channel support (airlines to
island destinations, for example, rarely
have regard for a destination brand, as
269
GNOTH
they are often driven by numbers or
‘bums on seats’ rather than help-
ing tourist profiles fit the product).
The growth of destinations33 usually
brings with it diversification34 and
commoditisation.35 Both often cause
the original attraction and its values to
get lost. It depends on the brand
community to overcome these causes
of brand dilution.
The following section discusses how
tourism services can become the start-
ing point for developing brand exten-
sions into product markets. Finally, the
emergence and role of country as
brand can be discussed. The paper
thus defines basic structures of the
tourism industry that require con-
sideration when building destination
brands. The critical characteristics are
that tourism is a system of channels and
networks tourists make use of or build
themselves. The industry is user-
defined because its product, the holiday
experience, is perceived only by the
tourist. This requires members of the
industry to show a somewhat altruistic
commitment to tourism when sys-
tematically developing shared brand
attributes in their service production.
For the tourist to ‘learn’ and appreciate
existing and new destination brand
attributes, they need to be consistent
across a destination — which is thus
required to develop sets of shared
values, quality standards and pric-
ing signals even in the face of
local, regional or national competition
among industry participants them-
selves.
BRANDING TOURISM SERVICES AND
BRAND EXTENSIONS
Branding36 is a managed process
whereby management decides on a
270 䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
strategic plan to introduce and build a
brand identity.37 It serves both
consumers and companies to identify
goods and services and to differentiate
them from competitors.38
The choice of brand attributes is
a critical issue, as it helps determine
and shape competitiveness as well as
the identity of the services deliver-
ing the brand. Given this role, the
pool of attributes that help charac-
terise tourism services will necessarily
have to be selected according to such
criteria as competitiveness, uniqueness
and desired identity. While important,
these issues can only be dealt with in
passing in the present study. With the
country as brand in mind, however, it
is of strategic importance to consider
the tourism system and the existing and
evolving networks as the generators
of selected attributes for the destina-
tion brand. The starting point for the
branding activity is the attraction.
The four levels of brand extension
The attraction can be natural or
man-made, spiritual or tangible. It
will always have qualities that define
it, be they its own features or
those that surround it. These fea-
tures can be described through terms
that usually refer to a personality.
Tourists’ (symbolic) interactions with
these attributes become the characteris-
tics of the experience which, in turn,
define qualities of services that sup-
port the experience. For example,
a large part of the experience of
destination New Zealand is typified
by the outdoors, wilderness, insular
weather and agriculture, particularly
sheep farming. These features translate
into service experiences of human
warmth, rugged but cosy surroundings,
 LEVERAGING EXPORT BRANDS THROUGH A TOURISM DESTINATION BOARD
simplicity, hardiness, independence and
peace. The experience of, say, urban
France may be characterised by sophis-
tication, relaxed style, laissez faire
and indulgence. These attributes that
emerge from the interplay of people in
their environment form part of the
attraction as well as attributes of the
brand. Branding the attraction is the
first level of destination branding
activity (see Figure 2).
The network of each service in-
dustry helps shape the service delivery
channel and the final service product
through both tangibles and intangibles.
A hotel, for example, is built from
materials that are supplied by quarries,
timber yards and manufacturers of
hotel fittings and furnishers. Likewise,
tour operators may be using tour buses
or boats built in the country and
restaurants provide food supplied by
local produce markets. In summary, the
tertiary or services sector relies on
primary and secondary industries to
supply it with the tangibles and
consumables to deliver its service.
Apart from the intangibles that allow a
company, region or country to provide
unique service delivery, service also
relies on the tangibles which, if chosen
and employed carefully, can support
the above characteristics by reflecting
essentially the same or related features
as found in the attraction. We have
thus arrived at the second level of
branding destinations: branding the
services facilitating the attraction is an
extension of the original brand (see
Figure 2).
Since the tourism system relies on
primary and secondary industries, these
need to be integrated into the branding
effort as well — unless, of course, the
infrastructure has been imported, as is
the case with exclusive resorts in
䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
Activity Level Target
Branding 1 Attraction
Extending 2 Essential services
Extending 3 Support infrastructure
Extending 4 All export products
Figure 2 Progression of destination branding activity
so-called underdeveloped countries.39
Extending the brand to essential serv-
ices is the second level of branding,
while extending it to the directly
supporting primary and secondary in-
dustries is the third. Products and
services involved here relate to food
grown and processed in the country,
including wine, but also technological
products such as snow skis and ski lifts.
The latter have, for example, become
important export articles from Austria,
which built its original destination
brand on mountains and outdoor
recreation. In addition, Kaspar40 points
out that the production of tourism can
never be seen without the socio-
political infra structure that supports it
since it affects tourists’ experience at
destinations. It is thus part of a
country’s ‘reputational capital’.41 Since
the potential number of attributes
signifying the destination is too large
for a country brand, the choice must
be guided by a strategy that selects
these attributes (see Figure 3). While
impossible to include in the present
study, this strategy considers the net-
works involved as well as the implica-
tions of the progression from level one
to level four in this branding model.
The fourth level of branding extends
to all other nationally manufactured
products and services willing to join.
Figure 3 gives a graphic perspective
of the source of brand attributes drawn
from a country’s land-based, cultural
271
GNOTH

Social and political

infrastructure

Secondary industries

HSP TP

ACC ATT

Primary industries

Land-based resources
Figure 3 Tourism support systems

and technological resources. It is com- VW) or chemical products (BASF,

prised of four interrelated groups of
attributes. Beginning with the attrac-
tion as the first, further groups of
attributes are gathered from charac-
teristics of the essential services, next
from the secondary and primary in-
dustries supporting these services, and
finally by those from non-tourism-
related or supportive sectors. Here we
often find quasi-competing brands or
brands that are strong enough on their
own and not in need of a country
brand that has evolved from tourism.
For example, while the holiday des-
tination brand of Germany includes
attributes relating to landscape and
diverse cultural items such as castles,
viticulture and art, the fourth suggested
level of brand extension would refer to
such products as cars (Mercedes, BMW,
Bayer-Leverkusen). However, while
there may be brand connections from
tourism to these manufactured brands
— eg via transport or health products
— the process is not always reversible.
The technological achievements and
image of BMW would not affect our
beliefs about Germany as a holiday
destination. Neither would tourism-
dependent products,42 such as suntan
lotion or malaria tablets as examples of
the chemical industries, create associa-
tions related to Germany as a tourism
destination.
We can now recognise the potential
power of developing country as brand
with clear connections to tourism.
While the activity of tourism is one of
escaping or searching for something
new, of sheer hedonism and ‘looking at

272 䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
 LEVERAGING EXPORT BRANDS THROUGH A TOURISM DESTINATION BOARD
life through rose-tinted spectacles’, it is
still nothing else but ‘life’. Usually, the
tourist still gets up in the morning, has
breakfast, reads the papers, catches a
bus or taxi etc. and, generally, rarely
does anything totally ‘out of charac-
ter’.43 Therefore, the development of a
tourism destination brand must encap-
sulate the motivations of why the
tourist seeks out the destination. The
resulting benefits signalled by the
brand begin ‘colouring’ the holiday
experience through the destination’s
services. The results are numerous
opportunities for the generation of
unique experiences that are associated
with uniquely presented (branded)
products and services. To exploit these
opportunities effectively, one needs
to develop an understanding of the
relationship between (levels of) ex-
periences and (levels of) brand at-
tributes. As an introduction to this
issue, it must to be pointed out
here that merely associating brand
attributes with tourists’ experiential
values is not sufficient. The attempt by
Tourism New Zealand, for example, to
capitalise on the success of the movie
The Lord of the Rings after Tolkien’s
novel44 is mere opportunistic advertis-
ing as far as the brand New Zealand is
concerned. To build an effective brand
attribute that links up with the mys-
tique surrounding the film and novel,
tourism service design and delivery
need to incorporate a distinct set of
behaviour and other signifiers to make
it part of the tourist’s experience.
EXPERIENCES, SERVICES AND BRAND
QUALITIES
Holiday tourism is a recreational and
leisure activity.45 It is subject to a
hedonic style of consumption.46 Es-
䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
cape, new experiences, meeting dif-
ferent people or getting immersed in
unknown environments and recrea-
tion are all outcomes for which the
tourism service industry has developed
numerous products. As such, marketing
holiday experiences means signalling
benefits to potential customers47 that,
in turn, can be considered as attributes
for a destination or country brand.
These experiences occur at three
levels: the functional, experiential and
symbolic. The functional level relates
to the core characteristics of a product
or service. It denotes its instrumentality
or utility. The experiential or hedonic
dimension relates to the sensual aspects
of an experience,48 whereas the sym-
bolic dimension refers to what it all
means to the tourist. The symbolism
involved is therefore related to the
tourist’s motivational state of mind or
level of involvement.49
Likewise, service and brand perfor-
mance also occur at the functional,
experiential and symbolic level.50
Indeed, services are the complementary
device to help satisfy a tourist’s needs
at, potentially, all three levels.
Companies seek to signify their
particular type and quality of service
through their brand. Consequently, a
brand can be seen as having the same
three levels.
As tourism destinations develop, the
first level to evolve is the func-
tional one relating to essential service
provision. Gradually, existing services
production processes are adjusted to
accommodate tourists. With an in-
crease of the operation’s commitment
to tourism, successful businesses be-
come aware of the tourists’ sym-
bolic involvement and begin to satisfy
tourists’ wants at that level, too. While
the functional level is the easiest to
273
GNOTH
copy by competitors, the experiential
and symbolic levels offer opportunities
for diversification and uniqueness. At
each stage of the development, brand
dilution can occur due to increas-
ing commoditisation of the product.51
Strong and determined branding ac-
tivity can therefore assist in protecting
the original brand values of the
attraction.
Goodyear52 discerns six levels in the
process of branding. While not all
levels are achieved or aspired to, if a
company decides to position a product
at a particular level it has to ensure
that the lower levels have been estab-
lished previously.53 While Park et al.54
maintain that a brand can be pitched
at any level (functional or symbolic),
McEnally and de Chernatony55 believe
that the functional level needs to be
established, at least as a product class,
before symbolic levels can be con-
structed. In the present context this
means that, for example, countries or
regions have to be recognised and
considered as destinations before the
notion of branding can be applied.
The controversy expressed in these
views cannot be solved here. It can be
stated, however, that for tourism the
answer as to whether a destination
brand can be established at any level
successfully is at least a matter of
control over brand attributes. Because
tourism is a supply-driven industry, the
opportunity to pitch a brand right at
the symbolic level may be given. We
thus have totally controlled holiday
resorts, some with (mock) hallmarks of
sovereign states, such as Club Med or
Disney World. But, as Kapferer56
warns, the more a company con-
centrates on the symbolic level while
neglecting the functional and experien-
tial, the easier it will be for competitors
274 䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
to copy those attributes. Symbolic
attributes by themselves are abstract
and can be created in a number of
ways.
It is therefore of importance when
branding a tourism destination with a
country as brand in mind that the
consistency of attributes is developed
within and across three dimensions.
First, the tourism industry has to
ascertain that tourism operators build
and manage agreed-upon brand at-
tributes horizontally across individual
industry sectors. Secondly, there needs
to be vertical consistency between
different industry sectors, and, thirdly,
each operation must manage these
attributes at the functional, experiential
and symbolic levels combined, so that
the experience and its meaning be-
come inextricably intertwined. From
this summary, it can easily be in-
ferred that not channels but networks
are needed to develop the efficiency
of that process. Depending on the
particular branding philosophy and
developmental stage of the industry,
the acknowledgment and conscious
development of internal, vertical, inter-
market or concentric and opportunity
networks57 for the multifaceted tasks of
destination marketing and branding
support a competitive strategy.58
An efficient coordination of brand
attributes generates the desired
synergies and advantages for the brand
community. The synergies arise
because the tourist encounters the same
and similar qualities throughout the
destination in a number of different
situations and combinations (see Figure
4). Since these are all directly related to
the attraction, the tourist is motivated
to associate what is encountered and
encode it within a contiguous neural
network. As has been shown, stored

Tourists' selective
perceptions of the Brand
High
COUNTRY
BRAND
TOURISM
SERVICES
Brand
Development
Symbolic
Experiential
Functional
Low Physical
Social
Cultural
Spiritual
Figure 4 The relationship between country brand and benefits from tourism destination
product information tends to be based
on brands (including names of
destinations). Any new information
(including export products encoun-
tered in home countries) will be
interpreted in a way that is consistent
with how existing knowledge is
organised already.59 It also includes
affect transfer from past experiences on
to new products. This represents the
opportunity for the fourth level of
branding activity, the cross-over to
primary and secondary industry
products involved in traditional export
marketing, but without close links to
tourism (see Figure 2).
Once a tourism industry manages
to establish brand attribute consistency
across a destination, so that a tourist
encounters these throughout a country,
the country emerges as brand. Once a
country’s tourism industry has gone
through the effort of developing, dis-
seminating and managing brand at-
tributes, other primary and secondary
䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
LEVERAGING EXPORT BRANDS THROUGH A TOURISM DESTINATION BOARD
Tourists Tourists'
Expectations Evaluation
High
Symbolic Symbolic
Destination's
Benefits
Service Service
from
Performance Experience
Experiential Experiential Tourists'
Brand
Image
Functional Functional
Tourists'
Expectations Low
Destination
Tourists' general knowledge
and affect towards Destination
industry product manufacturers which
do not participate in tourism have
the opportunity to interpret the at-
tributes for themselves and link into
the promotional activities of the des-
tination brand. Notwithstanding this,
the tourist may already have begun
associating the latter products with the
country brand. However, this process
can be further targeted and made more
efficient for the companies involved.
To illustrate, the second level of
country-as-brand development is here
related to the previous examples of
New Zealand and France. Research
has found that there exist, among
others, strong associations of New
Zealand with the beautiful and rugged
outdoors, together with unpredictable
weather patterns and sheep farming, in
some of New Zealand’s major tourism
markets.60 Particularly the outdoors
requires sturdy clothing. As a major
producer of wool, New Zealand is
slowly developing the tourism market
275
GNOTH
as a launch pad for the outdoor
clothing industry while making suc-
cessful forays into the fashion markets.
Similarly, France’s car manufacturer
Citroen makes much use of the French
landscape and lifestyle in its advertising
for its luxuriously comfortable cars —
as experienced by tourists on holidays.
While it appears that neither of these
campaigns is related to any serious,
coordinated branding activity that lets
either country emerge as brands, such
branding is already happening due
to tourism. Efficiency gains can be
achieved through a coordinated and
managed branding process. The more
a tourism destination manages its brand
attributes within and across industry
participants at all three levels of
the service/holiday experience, the
stronger the benefits to the tourist and
thus to the country brand.
CONCLUSION
This study attempted theoretically to
develop a model of leveraging a
country brand through a tourism
destination brand, whereby the services
facilitating the tourism experience at a
destination would be employed to
develop the country brand across
different industries. One way in which
this can be achieved is that in one
destination a brand community forms
which, successively, integrates more
and more destinations into that com-
munity through efficiently developed
network management while overcom-
ing barriers such as distrust, oppor-
tunism and competition.
In this model, the attraction at-
tributes serve as core brand attributes.
They are then reinterpreted in the
tourism service facilitation as exten-
sions of the tourism brand. Supporting
276 䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
infrastructures supplied by the country’s
primary and secondary industries are
then to be subsumed in the spirit of
the attraction brand to become further
brand extensions. At all stages of the
development, and in particular at the
beginning of that process, it is impor-
tant to develop the vision of the brand
so as to permit scope and flexibility for
extending across a variety of (export)
product categories.
To be efficient, and socially and
environmentally responsible, the vision
or brand philosophy needs to be
guided by the type of attractions the
country and its regions offer and wish
to develop. By gradually ‘imbuing’ the
country’s tourism services with the
same set of values and attributes, the
country emerges as brand. For the
tourist, the name of the country
develops into a summary construct61
which contains a number of experien-
tially based and strongly held beliefs.
This turns into affective influence on
evaluations when judging products at
the brand extension level four (see
Figure 2) once the tourist is back
home.
This study gave a variety of ex-
amples for brand extensions. Those
extensions that would be part of level
four — that is, for all primary and
secondary products (see Figure 2) —
would pose as the most ambitious as
well as the most dangerous. They are
ambitious because managerial models
to embrace the scope of network-
ing tasks designed to manage this
high-level process are only slowly
emerging.62 Wherever countries have
developed networking approaches to
export industries, such as in New
Zealand, Australia, Ireland or Finland63
and whenever tourism has featured in
that process, as in New Zealand,64 the
 LEVERAGING EXPORT BRANDS THROUGH A TOURISM DESTINATION BOARD
multiplexity of tourism and the conse-
quences for the branding process need
to be of prime concern. At the fourth
level of brand extension particularly,
failure to address the systemic dynamics
can easily cause brand dilution. Brand
dilution refers to the tourist’s inability
to connect the product clearly to the
original brand while being exposed to
the same attributes. The extension to
the fourth level (see Figure 2) can only
proceed after firmly establishing each of
the prior levels.
Success depends on essentially two
dimensions: the management of the
tourism system as a system of networks
and channels, and the management of
brand attributes, their dissemination
and consistency. The peculiarity of
tourism is that it is user-defined,
indicating that there are no ‘traditional’
channel, communication and power
structures. Brand development is there-
fore more likely to succeed by being
managed ‘bottom up’ rather than ‘top
down’. In other words, the required
network structures to be formed in the
industry to sustain a branding exercise
need to develop a brand community
that creates communication and inter-
action patterns which overcome the
lack of a powerful channel captain.
However, it must also be stated that
with the increase in size of these
networks, transaction costs will in-
crease, and the organisation’s ability to
respond quickly to competitor action
will decrease. There are efforts under
way addressing the issues involved in
this dilemma for countries as destina-
tions (for example, in Switzerland65). In
general, such efforts are rare in tourism
and need further development ur-
gently.
With these caveats and challenges in
mind, when all brand levels (func-
䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
tional, experiential and symbolic) are
generated by the destination’s serv-
ices industry and supported by that
country’s primary and secondary in-
dustries, as far as tourism experiences
are concerned, brand attributes can be
extended to these primary and secon-
dary products as well, depending on
how well they fit the original brand
values that are based on the attrac-
tion.
In essence, the success of the brand
depends on the extent to which the
three brand levels are reflected in
tourists’ experiences, and whether they
are frequently exposed to the attributes
of these levels in different situations
throughout the destination. If these
values permeate the entire destination
and implicate the country, the tangible
service attributes can also become the
vehicle for extending the brand to
primary and secondary products. The
extension to other national brands (see
Figure 2), not necessarily involved in
tourism, depends on the success of the
latter stage of delivering the three
brand levels. All of this impacts on the
tourist’s acquaintance with a country’s
products and services. The learning
process is facilitated through operant
conditioning66 whereby s/he learns to
associate the products with the brand
of that country through impressive,
satisfying experiences and remembers
them when back at home.
The model, as presented here, did
not discuss the issue of developed
tourism destinations and country as
brand at any length because, first, it
was necessary to establish the basic
principles of the branding process.
Second, developed destinations of-
ten have a ‘brand’ already in the
form of stereotypical perceptions67 or
a spectrum of interpretations.68 In
277
GNOTH
these cases, the focus for successful
brand development lies with estab-
lishing the brand community. The
strength of that network will deter-
mine the success of the branding
process. It needs to supersede un-
wanted stereotypes through strong
management of new and revitalised
brand values and develop strategies for
permeating tourism services.
References
(1) For example, Bilkey, W. J. and Nes, E.
(1982) ‘Country-of-origin effects on
product evaluations’, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 13, Spring, pp. 89–99;
Nebenzahl, I., Jaffe, E. and Lampert, S.
(1997) ‘Towards a theory of country image
effect on product evaluation’, International
Management Review, Vol. 37, pp. 27–49;
Han, C. M. (1989) ‘Country image: Halo
or summary construct?’, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 26, May, pp. 222–229.
(2) Tauber, Edward M. (1988) ‘Brand leverage:
Strategy for growth in a cost-control
world’, Journal of Advertising Research,
August/September, pp. 26–30.
(3) Smith, S. L. J. (1991) ‘The supply-side
definition of tourism: Reply to Leiper’,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 18, pp.
312–318.
(4) Axelsson, B. and Easton, G. (1992)
‘Industrial Networks — A New View of
Reality’, Routledge, London.
(5) WTTC (World Travel and Tourism
Council) (2001) ‘Tourism Satellite
Accounting Research: Estimates and
Forecasts for Government and Industry,
Year 2001’, CD-ROM, WTTC, London.
(6) Kaspar, C. (1986) ‘Die
Fremdenverkehrslehre im Grundriss’, St
Gallen, Institut fuer Fremdenverkehr und
Verkehrswirtschaft; McIntosh, R. W.,
Goeldner, C. R. and Ritchie, J. R. (1995)
‘Tourism Principles, Practices, Philosophies’,
7th edn, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
(7) Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1981) ‘Positioning:
The Battle for Your Mind’, McGraw-Hill,
New York.
(8) For example, O’Shaugnessy, J. and
O’Shaugnessy, N. J. (2000) ‘Treating the
nation as a brand: Some neglected issues’,
Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.
56–64.
(9) Bieger, T. (1997) ‘Management von
278 䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
Destinationen und Tourismusorganisationen’,
2nd edn, Munich, Ouldenbourg Verlag.
(10) Ritchie, J. B. R. and Ritchie, R. J. B.
(1989) ‘The branding of tourism
destinations: Past achievements and future
challenges’, in Keller, P. (ed.) ‘Destination
Marketing — Scope and Limitations’,
AIEST Reports, 48th Congress, Marrakech,
Morocco, Vol. 40, pp. 89–116; Gnoth, J.
(1998) ‘Branding tourism destinations’,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 25, No. 3,
pp. 758–760.
(11) Dolnicar, S. and Mazanec, J. A. (1998)
‘Destination marketing: Reinventing the
wheel or conceptual progress?’, in Keller. P.
(ed.) ‘Destination Marketing — Scope and
Limitations’, AIEST Reports, 48th
Congress, Marrakech, Morocco, Vol. 40,
pp. 55–89.
(12) Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1986) ‘Computation and
Cognition’, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
(13) O’Shaugnessy and O’Shaugnessy, ref. 8
above.
(14) See also Gnoth, ref. 10 above.
(15) O’Shaugnessy and O’Shaugnessy, ref. 8
above.
(16) Ritchie and Ritchie, ref. 10 above, p. 103.
(17) Kaspar, ref. 6 above; Freyer, W. (1988)
‘Tourismus’, Munich, Oldenbourg Verlag;
McIntosh et al., ref. 6 above.
(18) Adler, J. (1989) ‘Travel as performed art’,
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, No. 6,
pp. 1366–1391.
(19) See also the discussion in Smith, ref. 3
above.
(20) Butler, R. W. (1980) ‘The concept of a
tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications
for management of resources’, Canadian
Geographer, Vol. XXIV, pp. 5–12; Machlis,
G. E. and Burch, W. Jr (1983) ‘Relations
between strangers: Cycles of structure and
meaning in tourism systems’, Sociological
Review, Vol. 31, November, pp. 666–692.
(21) See also Kaspar, ref. 6 above; McIntosh et
al., ref. 6 above.
(22) Woodside, A. G. and MacDonald, R.
(1993) ‘General system framework of
customer choice processes of tourism
services’, in Gasser, R. V. and Weiermair,
K. (eds) ‘Spoilt for Choice: Decision
Making Processes and Preference Changes
of Tourists’, proceedings of the Institute of
Tourism and Service Economics
International Conference, November,
University of Innsbruck, pp. 30–59; Gnoth,
J. (1997) ‘Motivation and expectation
formation’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol.
24, No. 2, pp. 283–304.
(23) See, for example, Bowersox, D. J. and
 LEVERAGING EXPORT BRANDS THROUGH A TOURISM DESTINATION BOARD
Cooper, M. B. (1992) ‘Strategic Marketing
Management’, McGraw-Hill New York;
Stern, L. W. and El-Ansary, A. I. (1988)
‘Marketing Channels’, 3rd edn, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
(24) Stern and El-Ansary, ibid., p. 3.
(25) See, for example, Lovelock, Christopher H.
(1991) ‘Services Marketing’, 2nd edn,
Upper Saddle River, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
(26) Stern and El-Ansary, ref. 23 above.
(27) Kapferer, J.-N. (1992) ‘Strategic Brand
Management’, Kogan Page, London.
(28) Muniz, A. and O’Guinn, T. (2001) ‘Brand
community’, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 412–432.
(29) Jarillo, J. C. (1990) ‘Comments on
transaction costs and networks’, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 497–499.
(30) Achrol, R. S. (1997) ‘Changes in the
theory of interorganisational relations in
marketing: Toward a network paradigm’,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 56–71.
(31) See, for example, Achrol, ibid.
(32) Bieger, T, and Weibel, C. (1989)
‘Moeglichkeiten und Grenzen des
kooperativen Tourismusmarketings —
Schaffung von Tourismussystemen als
Strategien gegen destinationsaehnliche
Konkurrenzprodukte’, in Keller. P. (ed.)
‘Destination Marketing — Scope and
Limitations’, AIEST Reports, 48th
Congress, Marrakech, Morocco, Vol. 40,
pp. 55–89.
(33) Butler, ref. 20 above; Cooper, C. (1994)
‘The tourism area life cycle’, in Witt, S.
and Moutinho, L. (eds) ‘Tourism Marketing
and Management Handbook’, Prentice-Hall,
London.
(34) Machlis and Burch, ref. 20 above.
(35) MacCannell, D. (1976) ‘The Tourist’, New
York, Schocken.
(36) Kapferer, ref. 27 above; Domizlaff, H.
(1992) ‘Die Gewinnung des oeffentlichen
Vertraunes’, Marketing Journal, Hamburg;
Aaker, D. A. (1996) ‘Building Strong
Brands’, Free Press, New York.
(37) Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. and MacInnis, D.
(1986) ‘Strategic brand concept-image
management’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50,
October.
(38) Kotler, P. (1988) ‘Marketing Management:
Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and
Control’, 6th edn, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
(39) Turner, L. and Ash, J. (1975) ‘The Golden
Hordes: International Tourism and the
Pleasure Periphery’, Constable, London.
(40) Kaspar, ref. 6 above.
䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
(41) O’Shaugnessy and O’Shaugnessy, ref. 8
above.
(42) Freyer, ref. 17 above.
(43) Machlis and Burch, ref. 20 above;
Dumazedier, J. (1967) ‘Towards a Society of
Leisure’, Free Press, New York; Parker, S.
(ed.) (1983) ‘Leisure and work’, in ‘Leisure
and Recreational Studies 2’, London, Allen
and Unwin.
(44) See http://www.purenz.com/.
(45) See, for example, Dumazedier, ref. 43
above.
(46) Kroeber-Riel, W. (1986) ‘Erlebnisbetontes
Marketing’, in Belz, C. (ed.) ‘Realisierung
des Marketing, Festschrift zum 60.
Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. Weinhold
Stuenzi’, Vol. 2, St Gallen, Savosa, pp.
1138–1151; Hirschman, E. C. and
Holbrook, M. B. (1982) ‘Hedonic
consumption: Emerging concepts, methods,
and propositions’, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
46, Summer, pp. 92–101.
(47) Haley, R. I. (1977) ‘Benefit segmentation:
A decision-oriented research tool’, in Enis,
B. M. (ed.) ‘Marketing Classics’, 3rd edn.,
Allyn & Bacon, Boston, pp. 273–283.
(48) Hirschman and Holbrook, ref. 46 above.
(49) Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985) ‘Measuring the
involvement construct’, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 12, pp. 341–352.
(50) Keller, K. L. (1993) ‘Conceptualizing,
measuring, and managing customer-based
brand equity’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57,
January, pp. 1–22.
(51) MacCannell, ref. 35 above.
(52) Goodyear M. (1996) ‘Divided by a
common language: Diversity and deception
in the world of global marketing’, Journal of
the Market Research Society, Vol. 38, No. 2,
pp. 105–122.
(53) McEnally, Martha R. and de Chernatony,
L. (1999) ‘The evolving nature of branding:
Consumer and managerial considerations’,
Journal of Consumer and Market Research,
February, available at http://www.
amsreview.org/amsrev/theory/mcenally02-
99.html._
(54) Park et al., ref. 37 above.
(55) McEnally and de Chernatony, ref. 53
above.
(56) Kapferer, ref. 27 above.
(57) Achrol, ref. 30 above.
(58) For example, Jarillo, ref. 29 above.
(59) Simonson, I., Huber, Joel and Payne, John
(1988) ‘The relationship between prior
brand knowledge and information
acquisition order’, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 14, March, pp. 566–578.
(60) Gnoth, J., Ganglmair, A., Hilt, S. and Holt,
279
GNOTH
E. (1999) ‘The US Tourism Market to
New Zealand’, PGSF Research Project,
University of Otago, Department of
Marketing; Gnoth, J. and Ganglmair, A.
(2000) ‘The German Tourist Market to
New Zealand’, PGSF Research Project,
University of Otago, Department of
Marketing.
(61) Han, ref. 1 above.
(62) Bieger, ref. 9 above; Parry, M. (1999)
‘Small Firms and Network Economies’,
London, Routledge.
(63) Parry, ibid.
280 䉷 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1350-231X BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 9, NO. 4–5, 262–280 APRIL 2002
(64) Gnoth, J. and Anwar, S. A. (2000) ‘New
Zealand bets on event tourism’, Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 72–83.
(65) Bieger, ref. 9 above.
(66) Skinner, B. F. (1938) ‘The Behavior of
Organisms’, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New
York.
(67) O’Shaugnessy and O’Shaugnessy, ref. 8
above.
(68) de Chernatony, L. (2001) ‘From Brand
Vision to Brand Evaluation’,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.