This is the author version published as: This is the accepted version of this article. To be published as : This is the author’s version published as: Catalogue from Homo Faber 2007

QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

 Bianchi, Constanza & Pike, Steven D. (2010) An application of the CBBE model to assess brand loyalty for a long haul travel destination. In: 2010 Global Marketing Conference, 9‐12 September 2010, Hotel Okura, Tokyo.

Copyright 2010 [please consult the authors] 

An application of the CBBE model to assess brand loyalty for a long haul travel destination

Dr Constanza C. Bianchi, Queensland University of Technology

Dr Steven Pike, Queensland University of Technology

March, 2010

Send correspondence to Constanza C. Bianchi, PhD, School of Advertising,

Marketing and Public Relations, Faculty of Business, Queensland University of Technology,

2 George Street Z1034, Brisbane Qld. 4001, Australia (email: constanza.bianchi@qut.edu.au).

An application of the CBBE model to assess brand loyalty for a long haul travel destination

Abstract

In the past two decades there has been increasing interest in branding tourism destinations in

an effort to meaningfully differentiate against a myriad of competing places that offer similar

attractions and facilities. The academic literature relating to destination branding commenced only

as recently as 1998, and there remains a dearth of empirical data that tests the effectiveness of brand

campaigns, particularly in terms of enhancing destination loyalty. This paper reports the results of

an investigation into destination brand loyalty for Australia as a long haul destination in a South

American market. In spite of the high level of academic interest in the measurement of perceptions

of destinations since the 1970s, few previous studies have examined perceptions held by South

American consumers. Drawing on a model of consumer-based brand equity (CBBE), antecedents of

destination brand loyalty was tested with data from a large Chilean sample of travelers, comprising

a mix of previous visitors and non-visitors to Australia. Findings suggest that destination brand

awareness, brand image, and brand value are positively related to brand loyalty for a long-haul

destination. However, destination brand quality was not significantly related. The results also

indicate that Australia is a more compelling destination brand for previous visitors compared to

non-visitors.

Keywords: destination branding, consumer-based brand equity, destination marketing, Australia, Latin America, Chile.

1

An application of the CBBE model to assess brand loyalty for a long haul destination

1. Introduction

Over the past four decades, the importance of the tourism industry has been increasing for the

economy of many countries. Tourism-generated proceeds have come to represent a significant

revenue source for countries world-wide (e.g., Oh, 2005). However, the international tourist

industry is becoming an increasingly competitive marketplace and destination marketing studies

have addressed the marketing strategies and activities required to attract visitors by individual

country destinations (e.g., Mestre et al., 2008; Proença and Soukiazis, 2008; Henderson, 2009).

For most destinations, becoming competitive is the market place is a major challenge

(ADITR, 2001). For example, 70% of international travelers visit only 10 countries, leaving the

remainder of national tourism offices (NTOs) to compete for the remaining 30% of total

international arrivals (Morgan et al., 2002). The modern consumer-traveler has an almost limitless

range of destinations offering similar attractions and facilities from which to choose, and the issues

of destination substitutability and destination decision sets have become important. Thus,

enhancing destination loyalty, through increased intent to visit, has become a key goal for

destination marketing organizations worldwide (Pike, 2004; 2008).

Within this discipline, destination branding is considered a vital aspect of destination

marketing practice, as broadening tourist opportunities and travel locations have resulted in lack of

differentiation among some destinations (Pike, 2005). Although there has been recent advancement

in the field of destination branding (e.g., Blain et al., 2005), this research has focused

predominantly on destination brand initiatives for tourists from geographically close markets

(Prosser, 2000). Attracting tourist from long-haul destinations involves unique challenges

compared to short-haul travel (McKercher, 2008; McKercher et al., 2008). Previous studies have

confirmed a relationship between distance and demand, and this has been denominated distance

decay. To date though, little research has explored the resultant impact of distance on destination

2

branding and destination loyalty (McKercher, 2008), and little is known regarding the role of

previous visitation on long-haul destination loyalty.

The aim of this study was to test the suitability of a consumer-based brand equity (CBBE)

(Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003) framework to examine destination brand

loyalty for Australia as a long haul destination for tourists located in a South American country.

The reason for this is that out of 262 destination image studies published between 1973 and 2007,

Pike (2007b) identified only two studies that had investigated perceptions of consumers in South

America (see Brown, 1998; Rezende-Parker et al., 2003). Thus, most scale development has used

consumers from the USA and parts of Europe.

Overall, the CBBE model offers destination marketers a performance instrument to measure

tourist perceptions of a destination brand. The proposed CBBE model features five related

dimensions which overall measure brand equity: brand salience, brand image, brand quality, brand

value, and brand loyalty (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003).

2. Literature Review

Destination branding is defined as ‘the set of marketing activities that (1) support the

creation of a name, symbol, logo, word mark or other graphic that readily identifies and

differentiates a destination; (2) consistently convey the expectation of a memorable travel

experience that is uniquely associated with the destination; (3) serve to consolidate and reinforce

the emotional connection between the visitor and the destination; and (4) reduce consumer search

costs and perceived risk’(Blain et al., 2005, p.337).

Destination branding only emerged as a field of tourism literature as recent as 1998 (see

Dosen et al., 1998; Pritchard and Morgan, 1998). Since then, studies have addressed topics such as

destination brand strategies (Dosen et al., 1998; Gnoth, 1998; Pritchard and Morgan, 1998;

Balakrishnan, 2009), destination brand identity (Konecnik, 2008), destination brand personality

(Murphy et al., 2007), destination brand image (Hankinson, 2005; McCartney et al., 2008; Litvin

3

and Mouri, 2009), destination brand experiences (Hudson and Ritchie, 2009), and destination brand

equity (Konecnik and Gartner, 2007; Boo et al., 2009). Although the contribution of these studies is

notable, the field of destination branding is still considered to be in its early stages (see McCartney

et al., 2008; Litvin and Mouri, 2009).

One of the topics that require more research is destination brand loyalty. This topic is

particularly critical for achieving repeat visitation and positive word of mouth among tourists

(Gartner and Hunt, 1987; Li and Petrick, 2008). Although attracting new customers is essential for

any company, it is more desirable and much less expensive to retain current customers (Reichheld

et al., 2000). Research has shown that in the short run, loyal customers are more profitable because

they spend more and are less price sensitive (Reichheld et al., 2000). Furthermore, loyal customers

can lead to increased positive word of mouth for the service provider (Jones and Taylor, 2007).

The relationship between distance and tourism has long been recognized in the tourism

literature (e.g., McKercher and Lew, 2003; McKercher, 2008; McKercher et al., 2008). Travel

distance plays a vital role in influencing tourism demand because the act of traveling requires an

investment in time, money, and effort (McKercher and Lew, 2003). Commonly referred to as the

distance decay effect, it argues that demand for a good or service declines as distance increases.

Thus, higher distance and costs associated with long-haul travel may preclude many people from

travelling longer distances (McKercher, 2008; McKercher et al., 2008). McKercher et al.(2008)

found that relatively few people are willing to travel more than 2,000 km. from their home country

so the ability of mot destinations to attract long-haul markets is limited.

Moreover, most studies have found that previous visitors have more positive images than

non-visitors (Fayeke and Crompton, 1991; Milman and Pizam, 1995; Konecnik, 2002).

Oppermann (2000) explored new Zealanders travel patterns and found a close relationship between

past travel and repeat behavior. However, recently Hughes and Allen (2008) studied images of

central and Easter Europe and found no differences between visitors and non-visitors, although

4

specific knowledge of the tourist attractions in the destination was greater among visitors than non-

visitors. Non-visitors recollected vague information about places they had heard of or seen in the

media. Thus, the role of previous visitation needs to be assessed for a long-haul destination.

3. Conceptual Framework:

Since the 1990s there has been a growing interest in the concept of consumer-based brand

equity (CBBE) for firms (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003). Brand equity

represents perceptions and attitudes held by consumers regarding a brand. Perceptions are a

function of organic sources, such as visitation and word-of-mouth recommendations from others,

and induced sources, such as brand positioning by the DMO and activities held by intermediaries

(Gartner, 1993). The development of CBBE represents a shift from thinking about brand equity as

an intangible financial asset on a firm’s balance sheet and provides a framework for marketers to

assess the effectiveness of marketing efforts on branding.

We draw on this model of consumer-based brand equity (CBBE), to assess destination brand

loyalty. While there is no commonly agreed CBBE model in the literature, the key components

involve a hierarchy of the following constructs: salience (awareness), image (associations), quality,

value, and loyalty. A few studies have applied the CBBE model to branding in the tourism

marketing literature. Among the topics addressed by this research are conference attendee brand

equity (Lee and Back, 2008) and hotel brand equity (Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995; Kim et al., 2003;

Kayaman and Arasli, 2007; Kim et al., 2008). Specifically looking at destination branding studies,

CBBE has been applied to investigate Croatian-based brand equity for Slovenia (Konecnik and

Gartner, 2007), short break destination brand equity for an emerging destination (Pike, 2007a), and

CBBE for Las Vegas and Atlantic City in the context of gambling destinations (Boo et al., 2009).

The literature on destination branding and destination marketing, and CBBE provide the

background for investigating the antecedents of destination brand loyalty for a long haul

destination market, as well as comparing previous visitors and non-visitors. We propose associative

5

relationships among these five dimensions of CBBE, following the work of Boo et al. (2009).

Figure 1 presents the conceptual model and the next section discusses the hypotheses.

Take in Figure 1 here

3.1 Destination Brand Loyalty:

Brand loyalty is considered a main dimension of brand equity but has attracted relatively

limited interest in the destination branding literature (Oppermann, 2000). Loyalty is defined as ‘a

deeply held predisposition to re-patronize a preferred brand or service consistently in the future,

causing repetitive same brand purchasing, despite situational influences and marketing efforts

having the potential to cause switching behavior” (Oliver, 1999, p. 34). Specifically brand loyalty

has been defined as “the attachment that a customer has to a brand” (Aaker, 1991, p.39). The

concept and degree of loyalty is one of the critical indicators used to measure the success of

marketing strategies (Reichheld et al., 2000).

Recent research in tourism has looked at tourist loyalty towards a destination (Oppermann,

2000; Chen and Gursoy, 2001; Yoona and Uysalb, 2005; Chitty et al., 2007; Li and Petrick, 2008;

Mechinda et al., 2009). These studies suggest that the measurement of loyalty, especially in a long-

haul tourism context is difficult, since the purchase of a tourism product is a rare purchase and

might be a once in a lifetime experience or part of a multi-destination travel experience

(Oppermann, 1999; Martin and Woodside, 2008). Previous research has suggested a two-

dimension of loyalty construct behavioral loyalty and attitudinal loyalty (Jones and Taylor, 2007;

Li and Petrick, 2008). Behavioral loyalty refers to the frequency of repeat or relative volume of

same brand purchase. Attitudinal loyalty refers to a positive attitude a person has about a

destination and although they may not be visiting it (again), they will provide positive word of

mouth. Tourism researchers have used tourist’s recommendation to others as a measure of

attitudinal loyalty (Oppermann, 2000; Chen and Gursoy, 2001). Hence, this study will focus on

attitudinal loyalty which refers to tourist’s intention to visit or provide recommendations to others.

6

Thus, we operationalize destination loyalty as tourists’ perceptions of a destination as a

recommendable place to visit.

3.2 Destination Brand Salience:

Brand salience is a key dimension of brand equity (Keller, 2003), and the aim is to be

remembered for the reasons intended instead of just achieve general awareness per se (Aaker,

1996). Destination brand salience represents the strength of awareness of the destination in the

mind of a tourist for a given travel situation (Aaker, 1996). Destination marketing aims to raise

awareness of a destination by creating and advertising a unique brand (Jago et al., 2003). It is

important to achieve decision set inclusion, since a consumer will have varying degrees of

awareness of a multitude of destinations. Brand salience is commonly measured by unaided or

awareness or aided brand recall. Previous research has found an indirect relationship between

destination brand salience and destination brand loyalty for short-haul destinations (Boo et al.,

2009). In the context of a long-haul destination, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Destination brand salience will positively influence destination brand loyalty.

3.3 Destination Brand Image

Brand image is anything linked in memory to a brand (Aaker, 1991, p.109), as proposed in

the associative network memory model, in which memory consists of nodes and links (Anderson,

1983). A node contains information about a concept, and is part of a network of links to other

nodes. When a given node concept is recalled, the strength of association determines what other

nodes that will be activated from memory. Destination Brand image therefore represents a potential

node to which a number of associations with other node concepts are linked. Following Boo et al.

(2009), this study limits destination image to social and self image. A destination brand represents

a potential node, with which a number of associations with other node concepts are linked. Boo et

al. (2009) found a positive relationship between brand image awareness and brand destination

loyalty. Chitty et al. (2007) examined the antecedents of backpacker loyalty of Australia, and found

7

brand image was an important predictor of brand loyalty. For a long-haul destination, we propose

the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Destination brand image will positively influence destination brand loyalty.

3.4 Destination Brand Quality

Brand quality is another key dimension of brand equity (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2003), and has

been used interchangeably with customer perceived quality. Perceived quality has been defined as

the “perception of the overall quality or superiority of a product or service relative to relevant

alternatives and with respect to its intended purpose” (Keller, 2003, p.238). Destination brand

quality therefore refers to the perceptions of quality for a destination brand. Previous research has

considered elements of perceived quality such as destination infrastructure impacting brand

performance (Buhalis, 2000). Further, perceived quality has been found to positively relate to

brand loyalty (Boo et al., 2009). Based on these arguments, we propose the following hypothesis

for a long-haul destination:

Hypothesis 3: Destination brand quality will positively influence destination brand loyalty.

3.5 Destination Brand Value

The perceived value of a service has been defined as the benefits customers believe they

receive relative to the costs associated with its consumption (McDougall and Levesque,

2000). Zeithaml and Bitner (2000) have suggested that it is an overall evaluation of a

service’s utility, based on customer’s perceptions of what is received at what price. Heskett et

al. (1997) argue that perceived high value is positively associated with satisfaction and

loyalty. Regarding antecedents of loyalty in a tourism context, Mechinda et al. (2009)

examined the antecedents of tourist’s loyalty towards a tourist destination in Thailand and

found that destination attitudinal loyalty was mainly driven by perceived value. Boo et al.

(2009) and Chitty et al. (2007) found a positive relationship between perceived value and

destination loyalty. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis for a long haul destination:

8

Hypothesis 4: Destination brand value will positively influence destination brand

loyalty.

4. Research Design and Methodology

The authors used a sample of consumer-travelers from an emerging long haul market (Chile)

to test the hypotheses regarding Australia as a long-haul destination. The sample frame was a

database of faculty and alumni from a Chilean university who had international travel

experience. The authors randomly contacted 1000 potential participants through email to

solicit their participation in an online survey. Participants received a pre-tested Chilean

version of the questionnaire. Chile was selected as an emerging long haul market for Australia

following the launch of Qantas’ new Santiago/Sydney air service in October 2008. It has been

suggested that the recent free-trade agreement between both countries has increased

awareness of Australia as a touristic destination for Chilean tourists (Fraser, 2009).

The questionnaire used extant measures developed from the literature. A panel of experts

reviewed the original English version of the questionnaire prior to a pre-test involving a small

convenience sample. The questionnaire was translated into Spanish, the native language in Chile, to

improve the psychometric properties and to facilitate a faster response (Brislin, 1970). A qualified

bilingual business academic translated the questionnaire directly from the original English

language version. Next, a panel of Chilean academics working in Australia reviewed the Spanish

language version and a small number of Chilean importers pre-tested the questionnaire to refine the

wording, readability, and clarity of the measures before conducting the final survey.

A combination of semantic differential scales and seven-point Likert-type scales were

utilized to reduce the common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The first online page contained

two filter questions asking participants if they had visited another country in the past five years and

their likelihood of taking an international vacation during the next 12 months. Further, two top-of-

9

mind unaided awareness questions were asked to identify the size and composition of the

participant’s decision set. No mention of Australia was made on this opening page. The second

page asked participants to indicate if they had previously visited Australia and to evaluate Australia

on the five dimensions of CBBE scale (see Table 3) using a seven-point scale anchored at ‘very

strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘very strongly agree’ (7). Brand salience was measured with a four-item

scale following Boo et al. (2009) and Konecknic and Gartner (2007). Brand quality was measured

by a four-item scale based on Konecknic and Gartner (2007). Brand image and brand loyalty were

both measured using four-item scales based on Boo et al. (2009), Konecknic and Gartner (2007),

and Chi and Qu (2008). The final page contained demographic questions as well as an open-ended

question asking respondents what appeals to them in a holiday destination. Table 1 illustrates the

sources of the construct measures and their operational indicators

Insert Table 1 here.

A total of 341 complete surveys were received. The characteristics of the respondents

are described in Table 2. The sample is comprised of 77.4% male respondents and 22.6%

female respondents. The sample was aged between 25 and 65 years, 77.7% were married, and

70.4% had dependent children. The larger number of male respondents is due to the

composition of the faculty and alumni database. While the characteristics do not enable the

data to be generalized to the wider Chilean population, a purposeful sample of residents with

international travel experience was achieved. A total of 120 participants (35.2%) had

previously visited Australia, and 221 participants (64.8%) had not visited Australia

previously. This provided an opportunity to examine perceptions of visitors as well as non-

visitors to Australia. It is argued that the sample is suitable for assessing destination brand

equity given that 315 participants (92.4%) had taken a holiday in another country during the

previous five years. The mean likelihood of participants taking a holiday in another country

10

in the next 12 months was 5.0, on a seven-point scale anchored at ‘Definitely not’ (1) and

‘Definitely” (7).

Insert Table 2 here.

The top three unaided destination preferences for Chilean respondents were United

States, Brazil, and Mexico. Australia was ranked ninth in destination preferences. Given the

perceptual foundations of CBBE, the data therefore provided an opportunity to test the model

from the perspective of non-visitors as well as previous visitors among travelers in a long

haul market. The mean number of destinations in participants’ decision sets was 3.5, which is

consistent with previous studies reported in the tourism arena (Woodside and Sherrell, 1977).

The means for the individual scale items are shown in Table 3, and a number of

positive results and with the means for five items being below the scale mid-point.

Independent-samples t-tests found significant differences between previous visitors and non-

visitors, at <.05, for all items. As can be seen, the means were higher for those participants

who had previously visited Australia. The Cronbach alpha for each construct ranged from .92

to .76, which indicates good internal consistency reliability (Kline, 2005). The skewness and

kurtosis values were considered satisfactory.

Insert Table 3 here

The measures of each construct use item-to-total correlations, standardized Cronbach

Alpha, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (all in SPSS), single measurement models, and CFA

(using AMOS 16) for purification. Based on the analyses and suggested modifications, eight

measurement indicators from the five constructs were dropped. The authors tested the

proposed model using refined measures and common SEM procedures (Anderson and

Gerbing, 1991). Table 4 shows the correlations, means and standard deviations for the

construct measures.

Insert Table 4 here

11

To examine the model structure, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using Amos 16.0

resulted in a moderate fit and the Chi square statistic was significant (χ2/df=2.27, IFI=.964,

TLI=.946, CFI=.964 and RMSEA=.061). CFA results show that all items are significantly

associated with their hypothesized factors, as evidence of convergent validity. To check and

reduce common method variance, the questionnaire initially mixed positive and negatively

worded items. Recoded questionnaire items make all the constructs symmetric and this

procedure satisfies the statistical contention of common method bias variance. In addition, no

single factor accounted for most of the variance in the independent and dependent variables,

thus, no common method bias variance issues are identified (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).

5. Analysis and Findings

The SEM analysis shows moderate model fit for the total sample (χ2/df=2.27, IFI=.964,

TLI=.946, CFI=.964; RMSEA=.061). We also separated the data between previous visitors and

non-visitors to Australia. The SEM analysis on the non-visitor sample (n=221) shows an

improvement of the model fit (χ2/df=1.85, IFI=.966, TLI=.948, CFI=.965; RMSEA=.061).

However, the SEM analysis on the previous visitor sample (n=120) shows a deterioration of the

model fit compared to the non-visitor sample (χ2/df=1.63, IFI=.933, TLI=.893, CFI=.929;

RMSEA=.071). Thus, the model had a better fit for the non-visitor sample.

The results of the hypotheses testing for the total sample, sample of non visitors and previous

visitors are illustrated in Table 5.

Insert Table 5 here

The results of Hypotheses 1 indicates that destination brand salience is significantly and

positively related to destination brand loyalty for the total sample (β=.291, p<.001), and for the

subsamples of visitors (β=.20, p<.001), and non visitors (β=.64, p=.002). Therefore, the findings

support Hypothesis 1.

12

Regarding Hypotheses 2, the data show that destination brand quality is not significantly

related to destination brand loyalty for the total sample (β=.156, p=.075), or for the subsamples of

visitors (β=.12, p=.065). , and non visitors (β=.06, p=791). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is not

supported.

The results of Hypotheses 3 indicate that destination brand image is significantly and

positively related to destination brand loyalty for the total sample (β=.28, p<.001), and for the

subsamples of visitors (β=.26, p<.001), and non visitors (β=.27, p=.005). Therefore, the findings

support Hypothesis 3.

Finally, regarding Hypotheses 4, the data shows that destination brand value is significantly

and positively related to destination brand loyalty for the total sample (β=.231, p<.001), and for the

subsamples of visitors (β=.24, p=.002), and non visitors (β=.24, p<.047). Therefore, Hypothesis 4

is supported.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

Due to a dearth of research addressing the drivers of destination brand loyalty, this study

aimed to trial a CBBE model for exploring brand loyalty for Australia as a long haul destination for

Chilean tourist, an emerging South American market. This study attempts to contribute to the

current literature on destination branding in two ways. First, drawing on the literature on

consumer–based brand equity (CBBE), a model with antecedents of destination brand loyalty is

developed. This article proposes that destination brand salience, brand image, brand quality and

brand value positively influences destination brand loyalty. Second, this article tests a model using

data collected from a survey of Chilean tourists. The authors employ confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) to develop the construct measures and structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the

proposed model. The findings of this study contributes to a better understanding of the driving

forces of destination brand loyalty for a long-haul destination, and the impact of previous visitation

on this variable. Conceptually, the research enhances understanding of a) the suitability of the

13

CBBE model for measuring destination branding performance, and b) differences in brand

perceptions between visitors and non-visitors to Australia.

The findings of this study show that destination brand awareness, brand image, and brand

value are positively related to brand loyalty for a long-haul destination such as Australia.

Particularly the brand image of Australia was the strongest driver of brand loyalty. Furthermore,

although brand quality evaluated as the highest dimension of brand equity for Australia, especially

among previous visitors, it was not significantly related to brand loyalty. This suggest that Chilean

tourists assume that Australia as a developed nation has high quality installations. In addition, for

both visitors and non-visitors, Australian brand value was the lowest in evaluation. This implies

that Chilean tourists perceive Australia as an expensive destination relative to the benefits obtained

in visiting due to the distance, which is congruent with previous studies which show that distance

plays a vital role in influencing tourism demand because the act of traveling requires an investment

in time and money (McKercher and Lew, 2003). Moreover, past visitors evaluated the Australian

brand more highly compared to non-visitors, suggesting that visiting Australia helps increase brand

loyalty among tourists, which is consistent with previous research (e.g., Konecnik, 2002).

Several limitations might have affected the generalizability of the results of this study. First,

this empirical investigation considers perceptions of only Chilean tourists regarding Australia as a

holiday destination. Thus, the analysis was limited to one country. More research is required to be

undertaken with consumers in other Latin American countries of interest to Australia.

The study will assist future research investigating aspect of destination brand image, not

only from the perspective of South American consumers, but also for those interested in the

effects of distance on brand loyalty in the attempt to overcome destination substitutability.

These CBBE measures could be analysed at various points in time to track any strengthening

or weakening of market perceptions in relation to nation brand campaigns and objectives set

up by destination marketing organisations.

14

References

Aaker D.A. Managing Brand Equity. New York: Free Press, 1991. Aaker D.A. Building Strong Brands. New York: Free Press, 1996. ADITR Australian Department of Industry Tourism and Resources. Destination Competitiveness: Development

of a Model with Application to Australia and the Republic of Korea Anderson J.R. The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, M.A: Harvard University Press, 1983. Anderson James C., Gerbing David W. Predicting the Performance of Measures in a Confirmatory Factor

Analysis with a Pretest Assessment of Their Substantive Validities. Journal of Applied Psychology 1991; 76 (5): 732-740.

Balakrishnan M. S. Strategic branding of destinations. European Journal of Marketing 2009; 43 (5/6): 611-629. Blain Carmen, Levy Stuart E., Ritchie J. R Brent. Destination Branding: Insights and Practices from Destination

Management Organizations. Journal of Travel Research 2005; 43 (4): 328. Boo S., Busser J., Baloglu S. A Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity and its Application to Multiple

Destinations. Tourism Management 2009; 30 (2): 219-213. Brislin R. Back Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. Journal of Applied Psychology 1970; 1: 185-216. Brown D. O. German and British tourists’ perceptions of African, Latin American and Caribbean travel

destinations. Journal of Vacation Marketing 1998; 4 (3): 298-310. Buhalis Dimitrios. Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management 2000; 21 (1): 97-

116. Chen Joseph S., Gursoy Dogan. An investigation of tourists' destination loyalty and preferences. International

Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 2001; 13 (2): 79. Chi C. G-Q. , Qu H. Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and

destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourist Management 2008; 28 (4): 624-636. Chitty Bill, Ward Steven, Chua Christin. An application of the ECSI model as a predictor of satisfaction and

loyalty for backpacker hostels Marketing Intelligence & Planning 2007; 25 (6): 563-580. Cobb-Walgren C.J., Beal C., Donthu N. Brand equity, brand preferences, and purcahse intent. Journal of

Advertising 1995; 24 (3): 25-40. Dosen D.O., Vranesevic T., Prebezac D. The importance of branding in the development of marketing strategy

of Croatia as touristic destination. Acta Turistica 1998; 10 (2): 93-182. Fayeke P., Crompton J. Image differences between prospective, first time and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio

Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research 1991; 30 (2): 10-16. Fraser K. New world re-order. The Sunday Mail, April 19, 2009; 36. Gartner W.C. Image information process. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 1993; 2 (2/3): 191-215. Gartner W.C., Hunt J.D. An analysis of state image change over a twelve-year period (1971-1983). Journal of

Travel Research 1987; 26 (2): 15-19. Gnoth J. Branding tourism destinations. Annals of Tourism Research 1998; 25 (3): 758-760. Hankinson G. Destination brand images: a business tourism perspective. The Journal of Services Marketing

2005; 19 (1): 24-32. . Henderson J. Transport and tourism destination development: An Indonesian perspective. Tourism and

Hospitality Research 2009; 9 (3): 199. Heskett J.L., Sasser Jr. W.E. , Schlesinger L.A. The Service Profit Chain: How Leading Companies Link Profit

and Growth to Loyalty, Satisfaction and Value. New York, NY: Free Press, 1997. Hudson S. , Ritchie J.R.B. Branding a memorable destination experience. The case of brand Canada.

International Journal of Tourism Research 2009; 11: 217-228. Hughes Howard L., Allen Danielle. Visitor and Non-visitor Images of central and Eastern Europe: a Qualitative

Analysis. International Journal of Tourism Research 2008; 10: 27-40. Jago L., Chalip L., Brown G., Mulest T., Ali S. Building Events into Destination Branding : Insights from

experts. Event management 2003; 8 (1): 3-14. Jones T., Taylor S. F. The conceptual domain of service loyalty: How many dimensions? Journal of Services

Marketing 2007; 21 (1): 36-51. Kayaman Rüçhan, Arasli Huseyin. Customer based brand equity: evidence from the hotel industry. Managing

Service Quality 2007; 17 (1): 92. Keller K.L. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing

1993; 57 (1): 1-22. Keller K.L. Strategic Brand Management. N.J.: Prentence Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2003.

15

Kim H., Kim W.G., An J.A. The effect of customer-based brand equity on firm's financial performance. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2003; 20 (4/5): 335-351.

Kim W.G., Jin-Sun B., Kim H.J. Multidimensional customer-based brand equity and its consequences in midpriced hotels. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 2008; 32 (2): 235-254.

Kline R.B. Principles and Practise of Structural Equation Modelling. New York: Guilford, 2005. Konecnik M. The image as a possible source of competitive advantage of the destination-the case of Slovenia.

Tourism Review 2002; 57 (1-2): 6-12. Konecnik M., and Go, F. Tourism destination brand identity: The case of Slovenia. Brand Management 2008; 15

(3): 177-189. Konecnik M., Gartner W.C. Customer-based brand equity for a destination. Annals of Tourism Research 2007;

34 (2): 400-421. Lee J.S., Back K.J. Attendee-based brand equity. Tourism Management 2008; 29: 331-344. Li Xiang, Petrick James F. Reexamining the Dimensionality of Brand Loyalty: A Case of the Cruise Industry.

Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 2008; 25 (1): 68-85. Litvin S. , Mouri N. A comparative study of the use of “iconic” versus “generic” advertising images for

destination marketing. Journal of Travel Research 2009; 48 (2): 152-161. Martin D., Woodside A. Grounded Theory of International Tourism Behavior. Journal of Travel & Tourism

Marketing 2008; 24 (4): 245. McCartney G., Butler R., Bennett M. A strategic use of the communication mix in the destination image-

formation process. Journal of Travel Research 2008; 47 (2): 183-196. McDougall Gordon H.G., Levesque Terrence. Customer Satisfaction with Services: Putting Perceived Value into

the Equation. Journal of Services Marketing 2000; 47 (3): 9-20. McKercher B. . The Implicit Effect of Distance on Tourist Behavior: a Comparison of Short and Long Haul

Pleasure Tourists to Hong Kong. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 2008; 25 (3/4): 367. McKercher B., Chan A., Lam C. The Impact of Distance on International Tourist Movements. Journal of Travel

Research 2008; 47 (2): 208. McKercher Bob, Lew Alan A. Distance decay and the impact of effective tourism exclusion zones on

international travel flows. Journal of Travel Research 2003; 42 (2): 159. Mechinda Panisa, Serirat Sirivan, Guild Nak. An examination of tourist's attitudinal and behavioral loyalty:

comparion between domestic and international tourists. Journal of vacation marketing 2009; 15 (2): 129-148.

Mestre R., del Rey A., Stanishevski K. The Image of Spain as Tourist Destination Built Through Fictional Cinema. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 2008; 24 (2/3): 185.

Milman A., Pizam A. The role of awareness and familiarity with a destination: the Central Florida case. Journal of Travel Research 1995; 33 (3): 21-27.

Morgan N., Pritchard A., Pride R. Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition: Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2002.

Murphy L., Moscardo G., Benckendorff P. Using brand personality to differentiate regional tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research 2007; 46: 5-14.

Oh Chi-Ok. The contribution of tourism development to economic growth in the Korean economy. Tourism Management 2005; 26: 39-44.

Oliver R. L. Whence Consumer Loyalty. Journal of Marketing 1999; 63: 33-44. Oppermann M. Predicting Destination Choice: A Discussion of Destination Loyalty. Journal of Vacation

Marketing 1999; 5 (1): 51-65. Oppermann M. Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research 2000; 39. Pike S. Consumer-Based Brand Equity for Destinations: Practical DMO Performance Measures. Journal of

Travel & Tourism Marketing 2007a; 22 (1): 51. Pike S. Destination Image Literature. Acta Turistica 2007b; 19 (2): 107-125. Pike Steven. Tourism destination branding complexity. The Journal of Product and Brand Management 2005; 14

(4/5): 258. Pike Steven D. Destination Marketing Organisations. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2004. Pike Steven D. Destination Marketing: an integrated marketing communication approach. Burlington, MA:

Butterworth-Heinemann, 2008. Podsakoff P.M., MacKenzie S.B., Lee J-Y., Podsakoff N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A

Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 2003; 88 (5): 879-903.

Podsakoff P.M., Organ D. Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Management 1986; 12 (4): 531-543.

Pritchard A., Morgan N. Mood Marketing- The New Destination Branding Strategy: A Case of Wales the Brand. Journal of Vacation Marketing 1998; 4 (3): 215-229.

16

Proença S., Soukiazis E. Tourism as an economic growth factor: a case study for Southern European countries. Tourism Economics 2008; 14 (4): 791.

Prosser G. Regional tourism research: A scooping study. Reichheld Frederick F., Robert G. Markey Jr., Hopton Christopher. The loyalty effect - the relationship between

loyalty and profits. European Business Journal 2000; 12 (3): 134. Rezende-Parker A.M., Morrison A., Ismail J.A. Dazed and confused? An exploratory study of the image of

Brazil as a travel destination. Journal of Vacation Marketing 2003; 9 (3): 243-259. Woodside A. G., Sherrell D. Traveler evoked, inept, and inert sets of vacation destinations. Journal of Travel

Research 1977; 16: 14-18. Yoona Yooshik, Uysalb Muzaffer. An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination

loyalty: a structural model. Tourism Management 2005; 26 (45-56). Zeithaml V., Bitner M.J. Service Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm, 2nd ed. New York,

NY: Irwin McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 2000.

17

Figure 1: Proposed Model of Destination CBBE

Destination Brand

Quality

Destination Brand Image

Destination Brand Value

H4

H3

H2

H1

Destination Brand

Loyalty

Destination Brand

Salience

18

Table 1: Construct Measures and CFA Results

Constructs Measure

Sources Indicators Brand Salience (α = .76)

Boo et al (2008) Konecknic and Gartner (2007), Boo et al (2008) Konecknik and Gartner (2007)

The characteristics of this destination come to my mind quickly. This destination is very famous I have seen a lot of advertising promoting Australian holidays

Brand Quality (α = .92)

Konecknic and Gartner (2007) Konecknic and Gartner (2007) Konecknic and Gartner (2007)

High quality accommodation High levels of cleanliness High quality infrastructure

Brand Image (α = 0.86)

Boo et al. (2008) Boo et al. (2008) Boo et al (2008)

This destination fits my personality My friends would think highly of me if I visited this destination The image of this destination is consistent with my own self image

Brand Value (α = 0.85)

Boo et al. (2008) Boo et al. (2008) Boo et al. (2008)

Considering what I would pay for a trip, I will get much more than my money’s worth by visiting this destination. The costs of visiting this destination are a bargain relative to the benefits I receive. Visiting this destination is good value for money.

Brand Loyalty (α = 0.84)

Boo et al. (2008) Boo et al. (2008), Konecknic & Gartner (2007), Chi & Qu (2008)Konecknic and Gartner (2007), Chi and Qu (2008)

This destination would be my preferred choice for a vacation I would advise other people to visit this destination I intend visiting this destination in the future

α =Cronbach Alpha

19

Table 2: Participants’ Characteristics (n=341)

Demographic Profile No. %

Gender

Male 264 77.4%

Female 77 22.6%

Total 341 100%

Age

18 – 24 7 2.1%

25-44 202 59.2%

45-64 121 35.5%

65+ 11 3.2%

Total 341 100%

Marital Status

Single 51 15.0%

Married/Partner 265 77.7%

Divorced/separated/ widowed 25 7.3%

Total 341 100%

Education level

High school 5 1.5%

University 180 52.8%

Post-graduate 156 45.7%

Total 341 100%

Household Income

Less than US$25,000 40 11.7%

US$25,000 – S$50,000 80 23.5%

US$50,001 – US$99,999 131 38.4%

US$100,000+ 90 26.4%

Total 341 100%

Dependent Children

0 101 29.6%

1-2 140 41.1%

3+ 100 29.3%

Total 341 100%

20

Table 3: CBBE Scale Items Items Mean Std. Mean

visitors Mean Non-visitors

t Sig.

Brand salience (Alpha = 0.76) The characteristics of this destination come to my mind quickly This destination is very famous I have seen a lot of advertising promoting Australian holidays

5.1

4.8 3.1

1.8

1.6 1.6

6.1

5.3 3.4

4.6

4.6 3.0

-8.755

-3.944-7.990

.000

.000

.000

Brand quality (Alpha = 0.92) High quality accommodation High levels of cleanliness High quality infrastructure

5.6 5.9 6.0

1.3 1.2 1.1

6.1 6.4 6.4

5.4 5.7 5.8

-5.503-6.646-5.576

.000

.000

.000Brand image (Alpha = 0.86) This destination fits my personality My friends would think highly of me if I visited this destination The image of this destination is consistent with my own self image

4.2 4.4

4.4

1.7 1.8

1.7

4.9 4.7

5.0

3.9 4.2

4.2

-5.515-2.858

-4.815

.000

.004

.000

Brand Value (Alpha = 0.85) Considering what I would pay for a trip, I will get much more than my money’s worth by visiting this destination The costs of visiting this destination are a bargain relative to the benefits I receive. Visiting this destination is good value for money

3.7

2.8

3.4

1.5

1.3

1.4

4.0

3.0

3.7

3.5

2.7

3.3

-3.834

-7.990

-2.858

.004

.000

.004Brand loyalty (Alpha = 0.84) This destination would be my preferred choice for a vacation I would advise other people to visit this destination I intend visiting this destination in the future

3.3

4.3 4.7

1.7

1.9 1.9

4.0

5.6 5.2

3.0

3.7 4.7

-6.469

-2.767-3.834

.000.

000.000

* Seven-point Likert-type scale

21

Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations

Mean Std. Dev.

DBS DBQ DBI DBV DBL

DBS 4.33 1.66 1.00 .553 .563 .539 .725

DBQ 5.83 1.20 .553 1.00 .419 .324 .531

DBI 4.33 1.73 .563 .419 1.00 .405 .664

DBV 3.26 1.40 .539 .324 .405 1.00 .588

DBL 4.10 1.83 .725 .531 .664 .588 1.00 DBS=Destination Brand Salience; DBQ=Destination Brand Quality; DBI=Destination Brand Image; DBV =Destination Brand Value; DBL=Destination Brand Loyalty

22

23

Table 5: Model Fit and Hypotheses Testing

χ2 df, χ2/df RMSEA IFI TLI CFI

Total sample (n=341)

181.4 80 2.27 .061 .964 .946 .964

Non-visitors (n=221)

145.2 80 1.85 .061 .966 .948 .965

Visitors (n=120)

130.2 80 1.63 .071 .933 .893 .929

**p< .001

Total Sample (n=341)

Hypotheses Path directions Estimate CR P Result H1 DBS DBL .291 4.71 *** Supported H2 DBQ DBL .156 2.43 .075 Not Supported H3 DBI DBL .280 5.61 *** Supported H4 DBV DBL .231 3.88 *** Supported

Results significant at ***p< .001

Non-Visitors (n=221)

Hypotheses Path directions SE CR P Result H1 DBS DBL .20 3.05 *** Supported H2 DBQ DBL .12 1.85 .065 Not Supported H3 DBI DBL .26 4.23 *** Supported H4 DBV DBL .24 3.05 .002** Supported

Results significant at ***p< .001

Visitors (n=120)

Hypotheses Path directions St Estimate CR P Result H1 DBS DBL .64 2.18 .029** Supported H2 DBQ DBL .06 .265 .791 Not Supported H3 DBI DBL .27 2.84 .005** Supported H4 DBV DBL .24 1.99 .047** Supported

Results significant at ***p< .001