linking travel motivation, tourist self image and destination brand personality

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:On: 16 November 2010Access details: Access Details: Free AccessPublisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Travel & Tourism MarketingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306980

Linking Travel Motivation, Tourist Self-Image and Destination BrandPersonalityLaurie Murphya; Pierre Benckendorffa; Gianna Moscardoa

a School of Business, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia

To cite this Article Murphy, Laurie , Benckendorff, Pierre and Moscardo, Gianna(2007) 'Linking Travel Motivation, TouristSelf-Image and Destination Brand Personality', Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 22: 2, 45 — 59To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1300/J073v22n02_04URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v22n02_04

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306980

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v22n02_04

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Linking Travel Motivation, Tourist Self-Imageand Destination Brand Personality

Laurie MurphyPierre Benckendorff

Gianna Moscardo

ABSTRACT. Despite a growing body of work on destination branding, there has been little inves-tigation of whether or not tourists attribute brand personality characteristics to tourism destinationsand whether or not an emotional connection exists based on tourists’ perceived self-image and the‘brand personality’ of destinations. The aim of this study is to explore the links among four keyconstructs proposed for the destination branding and choice process–tourist needs, destinationbrand personality, self-congruity, and intentions to visit and satisfaction with a visit. The results in-dicate that where tourists can make an association between a destination and a destination brandpersonality, and where this association is consistent with their desired holiday experience, a highlevel of congruity will exist between the tourists’ self-image and their perceptions of the destina-tion. In turn this self-congruity was related to satisfaction with a visit to the destination but not tointention to travel to the destination.doi:10.1300/J073v22n02_04 [Article copies available for a fee fromThe Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> � 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Destination branding, brand personality, self congruity, motives, needs, satisfac-tion

INTRODUCTION

Destination branding appears to be emerg-ing as one of the most compelling tools avail-able todestinationmarketers seekingacompet-itiveadvantage.AccordingtoMorgan,Pritchard,and Piggott (2003) brands create a perceiveddistinctivenessbyincitingbelief,evokingemo-tions and triggering behaviours because theyhave social, emotional and identity value to theusers. It has been argued that to be effective,destination brands need to establish a brand

personality which creates a link to the tourist’sself-image through their needs and motives(Ekinci, 2003). This destination branding ap-proach is very different to the traditional pro-motion of destinations which use mostly physi-cal attributes and activity opportunities.

Thedevelopmentof destinationbranding re-search resembles many other areas of tourismresearch because it borrows and adapts con-cepts developed for consumer goods ratherthan services. Hankinson (2001) argues thatcreating brands as defined and discussed in the

Laurie Murphy (E-mail: [email protected]) is Lecturer in the School of Business at James Cook Uni-versity (Townsville, Queensland, Australia 4811). Pierre Benckendorff (E-mail: [email protected])is Lecturer in the School of Business at James Cook University (Townsville, Queensland, Australia 4811). GiannaMoscardo (E-mail: [email protected]) is Associate Professor in the School of Business at James CookUniversity (Townsville, Queensland, Australia 4811).

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 22(2) 2007Available online at http://jttm.haworthpress.com

� 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J073v22n02_04 45

Downloaded At: 00:04 16 November 2010

traditional marketing literature is a more diffi-cult and complex process when consideringdestinations and locations. As with other areasof tourism research, questions need to be askedabout the extent to which the assumptions of tra-ditionalbrandingappliestotouristdestinations.

The present study analyses some of the basicassumptionsofbrandingbyexaminingtherela-tionships among four key variables outlined inthe models of destination branding presentedby Ekinci (2003) and Hosany and Ekinci(2003). Specifically, the study explores the re-lationships among tourists’ motives, their useof personality characteristics to describe a des-tination (brand personality) and their percep-tionof thedegreeofcongruitybetweendestina-tion image and self-image (self-congruence).Two outcomes, intention to visit a destinationand satisfaction with a destination experienceare also included in the analysis. The overallaim of this study is therefore, to explore thelinks between tourists’ needs, brand personal-ity perceptions, self-congruity and behaviouralintentions and satisfaction. In particular, the re-search explores whether perceived brand per-sonality and tourist needs or motives interactand whether these two aspects are jointly asso-ciated with self-congruity, which in turninfluences behaviour. The following reviewwill consider these aspects in more detail.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Destination Branding

According to Ekinci (2003), the words‘brand’, ‘branding’ and ‘destination image’have appeared in many academic references,with no apparent effort made to distinguish be-tweendestination imageanddestinationbrand-ing. These concerns are also expressed by Cai(2002) and Konecnik (2004). Ekinci, buildingon the work of Cai suggests that destinationbranding constitutes the core of destination im-age. In turn, it is proposed that the human char-acteristics associated with the brand, or thebrandpersonality, formthecoreofa successfuldestination brand. Ekinci suggests that a rela-tionship exists between a destination’s image,destination branding and brand personality,and the tourist’s self-image.Theprocessofdes-

tinationbrandingbeginswhentheevaluationofdestination image includes a strong emotionalattachment. This implies that only brandeddestinations are purported to be able to estab-lish an emotional link with their potential cus-tomers. Ekinci elaborates that successful des-tination branding involves establishing amutual relationship between destinations andtourists by satisfying tourists’ needs. In estab-lishing this link between destination image andconsumer self-image an important factor isbrandpersonalitywhichemphasises thehumanside of the brand image.

These concepts are further developed byHosany and Ekinci (2003) and connected todestination choice. The authors argue that anoverall destination image is made up of brandpersonality, affective components, and what isreferred to as the cognitive image. Brand per-sonality is linked both directly to the overalldestination image, but also to the affectivecomponent. This connection reflects the im-portance of a match between the needs andself-image of the tourist and their perceptionof the brand personality of the destination. Theoverall destination image creates an overall at-titude towards the destination, which in turn isconnected to behavioural intentions and satis-faction. The element of cognitive image recog-nises that destination images include informa-tionabouta rangeof othervariablesnotdirectlyrelated to brand personality or brand awarenesssuch as travel distance and climate. In thismodel the key constructs are brand personality,and the connections among brand personalityand image and tourists’ needs or motives.

Brand Personality

J. Aaker (1997, p. 347) defines brand per-sonality as “the set of human characteristicsassociated with a brand” and identifies fivebroad dimensions to brand personality–sincer-ity, excitement, competence, sophistication,and ruggedness. J. Aaker and Fournier (1995)cite several references relating to the argumentthat brand personality can help to differentiatebrands, develop the emotional aspects of abrand and augment the meaning of a brand totheconsumer.According toD.A.Aaker (1996)brand personality is based on the brand-as-per-son perspective. For some brands, the brand

46 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING


personality can provide a link to the brand’semotional and self-expressive benefits as wellas a basis for customer/brand relationships anddifferentiation. Brand equity is reflected whenconsumers agree that the brand has a personal-ity, that it is interesting, and that they have aclear imageof the typeofpersonwhowouldusethe brand.

Linking Destination Brands to Motivesand Self-Image

The explicit link between brand personalityand self-identity in Ekinci’s (2003) work re-flects a recognition that a focus on product at-tributes in the branding process is insufficient.There is an increasing acceptance that lifestyleandvaluesystemsareofgrowing importance toconsumers. De Chernatony and McDonald(2001)havesuggestedthatasuccessfulbrandisan identifiable product, service, person orplace, augmented in such a way that the userperceives relevant, unique added values whichmatch their needs most closely.

The notion of Pine and Gilmore’s (1999)‘experience economy’ has also invigorated theservices marketing literature and implies linksbetween a perceived brand and the lifestyle as-pirations of consumers. According to Schmittand Simonson (1997), contemporary consum-ers make choices based on whether or not aproduct fits into their lifestyle or whether itrepresents an exciting new concept or a desir-able experience. According to Caldwell andFreire (2004), a brand must fulfill self-expres-sion needs, not just functional ones. With re-spect to destination marketing, King (2002)emphasises that travel is increasingly moreabout experiences, fulfilment and rejuvenationthan about ‘places and things’. He states thattourism marketers need to reassert themselvesin lifestyle marketing and focus more on whatthe customer would like to see in and of them-selves rather than on the physical properties ofthe product or service being promoted. Simi-larly, Morgan, Pritchard, and Piggott (2002),reinforce the link between product image andperceived self-image, arguing that consumersare making lifestyle statements. This meansthat successful destination brand should placemoreemphasisonpromotionofholidayexperi-ences which link key brand values to the aspira-

tions, emotive benefits and self-expressionneeds of customers. There is a long history ofresearchinto travelmotivesandbenefitssoughtas a basis for segmenting markets according toneeds. Frochot and Morrison (2000) reviewedthe application of benefit segmentation in tour-ism. They believe that one of the reasons for thegreat interest in benefit segmentation in traveland tourism is its focus on travellers’ motiva-tions, which have always been portrayed as acriticalvariable in thedecisionmakingprocess.Traditionally benefit segmentation has beenapplied toproducts,whilebenefitswere mainlyutilitarian. However, travel and tourism appli-cations have evolved to be most often associ-ated with travellers’ motivations. Frochot andMorrison cite Haley (1968), the pioneer of ben-efit segmentation, who stated that the belief un-derlying this strategy is that the benefits peopleare seeking in consuming a given product arethe basic reasons for the existence of truemarket segments.

According to Sirgy and Su (2000), self-con-gruity involvesaprocessofmatchingatourist’sself-concept to a destination visitor image.They claim that a consumer’s attitude toward aproduct (and product purchase) is influencedby the matching of the product-user image withthe consumer’s self-concept. Accordingly, thegreater the match between a tourism destina-tion’s visitor image and the tourist’s self con-cept, the more likely that the tourist has a fa-vourable attitude toward that destination, andtherefore is more likely to visit. Malhotra(1981) developed a scale to measure self andproduct concepts, comprised of 15 semanticdifferential items which in effect measure per-sonality characteristics. In Malhotra’s ap-proach, which was developed for traditionalgoods and services, the 15-item scale was usedto measure perceptions of products as well asthe actual, ideal and social self. Euclidean dis-tances between the profile of the products andthe self-concepts were correlated with prefer-ence rankings to determine whether respon-dents had greater preference for products morecongruent with their self concepts (Malhotra,1988). By contrast, Chon (1992), in a study ex-ploring the self-congruity concept as it appliesto tourismdestinations,askedrespondentsviaapost-visit self-administered mail questionnaireto rate thedegree towhicha typicalvisitor to the

Murphy, Benckendorff, and Moscardo 47


destination (Norfolk, Virginia) was consistentwith their actual and ideal self-images. Chonfound that tourist satisfaction was significantlycorrelated with self-image/destination imagecongruity–in other words, tourists who per-ceived a low discrepancy between a destina-tion’s user-image and his or her actual or idealself-image were more satisfied with the desti-nation. Goh and Litvin (2000) extendedChon’s post-visit work using the same scale todetermine whether the relationship held whenthe independent variables were changed topre-trip visitation interest, rather than post-trip satisfaction. They also employed the tradi-tional Malhotra scale in the same study. Theirresults indicated that Chon’s method foundself-image congruity correlated to travel inter-est and purchase likelihood. However, the re-sults using Malhotra’s approach were far fromrobust. They conclude that further research isrequired to validate self-image congruityfor tourism marketing. Sirgy et al. (1997)also report methodological problems withMalhotra’s traditional method. Sirgy and Supropose a new method to measure self congru-ence in a tourism context, adapted from theirwork in consumer goods and services settings.This method prompts respondents to thinkabout a particular destination and the kind ofperson who typically visits. They are asked toimagine this person in their mind and describethis person using one or more personal adjec-tives. Respondents are then asked to rate howconsistent the destination is with their actualand ideal social and self images. They arguethat this method of measuring self-image con-gruence is more predictive than the traditionalmethod because it captures self-congruitymore directly, contains less measurement er-ror by not employing pre-determined images,and is more holistic in capturing the self-con-gruity experience.

Applications of Branding in Tourismand Hospitality

The literature provides several examples ofdestination branding efforts deemed to be suc-cessful, includingSpain(Gilmore,2002),Wales(Pride, 2002), Oregon (Curtis, 2001), Louisiana(Slater, 2002) and Britain (Hall, 2004). In mostpublished accounts of the destination branding

process, desired brand personality characteristicsare identified. For example, Henderson (2000)discusses the New Asia-Singapore branding pro-cessand identifies the fivepersonalitycharacteris-ticscomprisingthebrand;cosmopolitan,youthful,vibrant, modern Asia, reliability and comfort.However, post-launch evaluative research withboth residents and visitors suggested that therewaslimitedawarenessofthebrandanditsperson-ality as envisaged by the creators, with little men-tion of several important brand characteristicsand values.

Despite this growing body of work on destina-tion branding in general, particularly at a countryor nation level, there has been little investigationof whether or not tourists do attribute brand per-sonality characteristics to tourism destinationsand, if so, does this influence their travel behav-iour. Hosany and Ekinci (2003) did test the appli-cability of J. Aaker’s (1997) scale to tourism des-tinations and found three rather than five validbrand personality dimensions, competence, ex-troversion, and excitement. They did not, how-ever, provide evidence of an emotional connec-tion based on tourists’ perceived self-image andthe ‘brand personality’ of destinations as pro-posed by Ekinci (2003). In addition, there is littleevidence in the destination branding literature oftheapplicationof theconceptbeyondthenationallevel to include regional tourism destinations.

Conceptual Framework

The aims of the study were developed from apreliminary conceptual model of the destina-tion branding and choice process. This modelbuilds upon the work of previous authors byequating destination image with destination at-titude, consistent with definitions of destina-tion image as a type of attitude (Pike, 2002).The model (see Figure 1) explicitly connectsdestination image/attitude to the behaviouralintentions and evaluative outcomes (intentionto visit or re-visit a destination and satisfactionwith the destination). In linewith both the tradi-tional approaches to destination choice (Coo-per, Fletcher, Fyall, Gilbert, & Wanhill, 2005)and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen,1988, 1992), the model argues that intentionsare influenced not just by the attitude towardsthe destination but also by information aboutconstraints and opportunities to travel to the



specific destination. Further, satisfaction de-pendson thematchbetween theattitudeand im-ageandtheactualexperienceof thedestination.

The modelborrows fromSirgyandSu(2000)and proposes that self-congruity is the constructthatconnects tourists’needsandbrandpersonal-ity perceptions to their overall destination im-age/attitude. Tourists compare their needs andaspirations to the personality characteristicsthey believe thedestination offers and the result-ing match contributes directly to self-congruityperceptions. In this model, destinations not onlyrequire a clear and recognised brand personalityto effectively compete with other travel options,but also the personality that is connected to thedestinationmustbeable toberelatedtotheneedsand desired experiences of the target markets.

Research Aims

The overall aim of this study was to explorethe links among tourists’ needs, brand person-

ality perceptions, self-congruity and behav-ioural intentionsandsatisfactionasproposed inthe preliminary destination branding and choicemodel presented in Figure 1. The model arguesthat potential and actual tourist markets shouldbe able to be identified based on their needs.Then if these markets have a perception of thebrand personality of a destination that matchestheir desired experience, they should have highself-congruity,and this in turnshouldberelatedto stronger intentions to visit the destinationand, for those that have visited the destination,higher satisfaction, as long as the destinationmeets the expectations associated with the des-tination image. In addition, the study exploresnew ground with the application of J. Aaker’s(1997)personalitydimensions to tourismdesti-nations, and tests the key assumptions aboutdestinationbrandinginaregionaldestination.

Specifically, the studywas guidedby the fol-lowing hypotheses;


Other ImageComponents

(e.g. distance, cost)

Intention to Visit orRepeat

Tourist Needs

Self-congruity

Brand Personality

Overall Image/Attitude Towardsthe Destination

Satisfaction withDestination

FIGURE 1. Conceptual Framework of the Destination Branding and Choice Process


• H1. Tourist motivations and destinationbrand personality perceptions will influ-ence perceptions of self-congruity in rela-tion to the destination,

• H2. Tourist perceptions of destinationfeatures other than brand personalitycharacteristics will influence their atti-tudes towards the destination, as demon-strated in satisfaction with the destinationand/or intention to visit, and

• H3. Tourist perceptions of self- congruityin relation to thedestinationwill influencetheir attitudes towards the destination, asdemonstrated in satisfaction with the des-tination and/or intention to visit.

METHODOLOGY

Thedestinationunderconsiderationisapop-ular regional tourismdestination inQueensland,Australia–the Whitsunday Islands. This desti-nation has been ‘branded’ by Tourism Queens-land, the state destination marketing organisa-tion (DMO). The Whitsunday region received687,155 visitors in 2003, comprised of 43% in-trastate, 29% interstate and 28% internationalvisitors. The Draft Destination ManagementPlan 2004-2007 for the Whitsunday region(Tourism Queensland, 2004) states that themain appeals and attributes of the destinationare exemplified in the image of many beautifulislands and coastline surrounded by a sea ofblue. The Whitsunday’s ‘Out of the Blue’ cam-paign and imagery reflects the importance ofthe destination’s unique combination of water,reef, islands, coast and activities. The desiredbrand image/personality is; fresh, vibrant,friendly, relaxed/carefree and confident. Itcould be argued that the desired brand image/personality is centred on the basic brand per-sonality dimensions of excitement, compe-tence and sophistication (J. Aaker, 1997). Thebenefits of the destination experience are iden-tified as escape, adventure, relaxation, indul-gence and refreshing.

Procedure

The data presented in this paper were col-lectedaspartof a surveyconducted in theNorthQueensland Tourism Region, which is bor-

dered to the south by the Whitsunday region.The project was conducted with the assistanceof a ferry operator in the region responsible fortransporting international and domestic visi-tors to a popular day trip attraction, MagneticIsland. In addition, surveys were conducted at apopular tourist ice-cream café located on themain Highway along the North Queenslandcoast linking Cairns and the Whitsundays.Many international and domestic visitors to thetarget destination region travel along this high-way. This approach also allowed for residentsof the North Queensland region to be surveyed,an important local market for the destinationunder study. The two survey locations also pro-vided an opportunity to access a mix of respon-dents who had, and those who had not, visitedthe destination. Respondents were approachedin the seating area of the café and on board the20 minute ferry ride. Those willing to partici-pate were provided with the survey for self-completion. The surveys were collected by re-search staff upon completion. The number ofrefusals was recorded, along with reasons forrefusal, themostcommonofwhichwere lackoftime, language difficulties and lack of interest.A total of 277 responses were obtained with aresponse rate of 62%.

Instrument

Of particular importance to the present studywere the sections of the questionnaire measur-ing tourist needs, destination brand personalitycharacteristics, perceived self-congruity, in-tention to visit the destination and satisfactionwith a visit to the destination region. In additionto these core measures the questionnaire in-cluded a series of questions measuring socio-demographic and travel behaviour variables.

Tourist needs were measured by asking for arating of the importance of nine statementsaboutdesired benefits from a holiday in generalusingafive-pointscalefromnotatall importantto very important. The nine statements, whicharesummarised inTable3 in the results section,were derived from several studies of expectedbenefits of holidays and motivations forholidays (Ryan, 1995).

Respondents were asked to indicate on a 1-5scalehowstrongly theyassociatedwith thedes-tination the 5 brand dimensions and 15 corre-



sponding brand facets identified in J. Aaker’s(1997) brand personality framework. The op-tion to state they were not sure was given in or-der to provide an indication of whether or notthere were certain personality characteristicsthat respondents found more difficult to associ-ate with tourism destinations. The decision wasmade not to utilise Aaker’s entire list of 42 per-sonality traits because of the risk of respondentfatiguegiven theoverall lengthand scope of thequestionnaire.

Inanattempt toexplore the linkbetweendes-tination brands and self-image/identity, Sirgyand Su’s (2000) proposed measures of self-congruity were employed. These measures in-clude all four of the main facets of self-identity;actual self-image, ideal self-image, socialself-image and ideal social self-image. The ac-tualself-imageisdefinedashowconsumersseethemselves and ideal self-image as how theywould like to see themselves. The socialself-imageisdefinedashowconsumersbelievethey are seen by significant others and ideal so-cial self-image as how they would like signifi-cant others to see them (Sirgy & Su). Respon-dents were asked to indicate their level ofagreement with the following statements: AWhitsundays holiday is consistent with how Isee myself, a Whitsundays holiday is consis-tent with how I would like to see myself, aWhitsundays holiday is consistent with how Ibelieveothers seeme,aWhitsundaysholiday isconsistent with how I would like others see me.Consistent with Sirgy and Su’s suggested ap-proach, these rating statements followed anopen-ended question asking respondents tovisualise and describe a typical visitor to thedestination in their own words.

Sample

There were more female (55.8%) than male(44.2%)respondents to thesurvey,andtheirav-erageage was 38 years. The majorityof respon-dentswereAustralian(70.6%),ofwhich70.6%were from the North Queensland Region and afurther 8.1% from the rest of Queensland. Ofthe 29.4% of respondents from overseas,45.6% were from the UK and 13.9% from theUnited States. See Table 1 for a demographicprofile of the sample.

Table 1 also provides details of respondents’previous experience with the Whitsundays. Ofthe 276 respondents 63.8% had visited previ-ously, on average 6.5 times (median = 2). Themost recent trip was likely to have been in 2004(39.3%). The most recent trip, on average, wasfor 4.2 days, average satisfaction was 8.71 outof 10 and 46.5% of respondents were planningto visit the Whitsundays in the future, themajority in 2004 (71.8%).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The first step in the analysis involved thepreparation of variables for inclusion in a seriesof multiple regression and discriminant analy-sis models to test the hypotheses. In order to re-duce the number of variables for inclusion inthe multiple regressions, and to avoid problemswith multicollinearity, the 20 brand personalityitems and the 9 travel motivation items weresubjected to principal components factor anal-yses with varimax rotation. Table 2 provides asummary of the results of the factor analysis ofthe brand personality items. As can be seen inTable 3 a four-factor solution was obtainedwith eigenvalues greater than 1 (Table 7). Thefactors have been labelled Sophisticated +Competent, Sincere, Exciting, and Rugged–based on item loadings.

Table 3 provides the results of the factoranalysis of the travel motivations items. In thiscase a two factor solution was deemed to thebest fit to the data, and the two factors were la-belled Novelty and Escape. For both of thesefactor analyses, factor scores were calculatedfor the respondents providing 2 motivation and4 brand personality variables for the multipleregressions. Bivariate Pearson’s r correlationsbetween the four self-congruity items rangedfrom .52 to .70 indicating a potential problemwith multicollinearity. To resolve this, a singleindex of self-congruity was computed by sim-ply adding scores on the four scales. In additionto these variables two extra variables were usedas proxies for the non-brand personality imagedimensions–sizeof travelgroup (related to per-ceptions of the extent to which the destinationwill suit the needs of others in the travel party)and distance of usual place of residence from



the destination (related to perceptions ofdistance and cost constraints).

These nine variables were then examined interms of their relationships with two key de-pendent measures of attitude towards thedestination–intention to visit and satisfaction

with the destination. In the case of intention tovisit the dependent variable was categoricalandsoadiscriminantanalysiswaschosentoex-amine the impact of the independent variableson the whether or not people intended to travelto the destination. Unfortunately this analysis


TABLE 1. Demographic Profile of Respondents

Characteristic

Gender (n = 267)Male 44.2%Female 55.8%

Age (n = 262)Mean 38Median 34

Origin (n = 269)Australian 70.6%International 29.4%

AustraliaNorth Queensland 70.6%

Queensland 8.7%New South Wales 13.8%Victoria 3.8%Other 3.8%

InternationalUnited Kingdom 45.6%United States 13.9%Other Europe 8.9%Germany 7.6%Canada 5.1%Ireland 5.1%Scandinavia 5.1%France 2.5 %Other 4.2%

% who have visited previously 64.0%No. of previous visits (mean) 6.48No. of previous visits (median) 2.0Most recent trip in:

20042003

39.3%32.1%

Average length of most recent trip 4.2 daysAverage Trip satisfaction 8.7/10

% who are planning to visit 46.5%When plan to visit:

20042005

71.8%16.5%

Why don't plan to visit (n=129)too far from home/don't live in Australiaother places to see/things to dono timetoo expensive/can't affordhave already been thereno particular reason

20.2%19.4%14.7%13.2%7.0%7.8%


could not be completed because of the numberof missing cases on the independent variables.This reflects thefact thatsubstantialnumbersofrespondents expressed difficulty with the indi-vidual brand personality items. The samplesizes for the second series of analyses, whichwere multiple regressions to explore the rela-tionships between the independent variablesand satisfaction with the destination, were notas affected by the problem of missing data be-cause the sample did not need to be divided intotwo groups as was the case for discriminantanalysis(i.e., intendanddonot intendtovisit).

Table 4 presents a summary of the results ofthe multiple regression analyses. A number ofanalyses were conducted to test for multi-collinearity and heteroskedasticity and noproblemsweredetected.Investigationof there-siduals indicatedthat linearregressionanalyseswere appropriate for the data. Two sets ofstepwise multiple regression analyses wereconducted–one examining the impact of thenine independent variables on satisfaction withthedestinationandoneexaminingthe impactofthe travelmotive factors, brand personality fac-tors,distancetodestinationandtravelpartysize


TABLE 2. Rotated Factor Matrix for Brand Personality Items

Factors*

1 2 3 4

upper class .814 .012 .102 .233sophisticated .813 .143 .244 .193successful .699 .420 .217 .078intelligent .687 .490 .130 .243charming .661 .438 .139 .091reliable .585 .521 .291 -.036up to date .576 .382 .511 -.011competent .521 .455 .463 -.096

honest .275 .818 .194 .156sincere .361 .756 .069 .217down to earth .097 .754 .351 .159wholesome .201 .722 .404 .094outdoorsy .222 .504 .373 .216

exciting .190 .141 .813 .124cheerful .183 .369 .747 -.070spirited .148 .302 .674 .397imaginative .373 .226 .607 .335

tough .094 .150 .061 .797rugged .471 .142 .128 .625daring .073 .156 .573 .611

*71% of Variance Explained

TABLE 3. Rotated Factor Matrix for Travel Motivation Items

Factors*

1 2

Opportunity to participate in novel experiences .789Experiencing exotic places .728Opportunity to meet new people .703Opportunity to learn about different people and places .680Opportunity to develop and learn new skills .648Go to places I can talk about when I get home .490Spending time with family/friends .819Opportunity to get away from the stress of normal duties .664Being physically active .506

*50% of Variance Explained


on the self congruity index. This is consistentwith a procedure outlined by Asher (1976). Inthe case of the first regression analyses on satis-faction with the destination, the model pre-sented in Table 4 had an adjusted r square of.71, suggesting that 71% of the variance in sat-isfaction with the destination was explained bythe four independent variables that were re-tained–distance to destination, the brand per-sonality factor of sincerity, travel party size andthe motivation factor of escape. This functionwas significant at the p < 0.01 level (F =13.782). The t-values of these four independentvariableswere also all significantat thep < 0.01level. The second set of regression analysesanalysed impacts of the independent variableson the self-congruity index. While the resultingmodel from these analyses was significant atthe p < 0.01 level (f = 7.6), it explained only 39percent of the variance (adjusted r square of.39). The independent variables retained in thismodel were the brand personality factor ofsincerityandthemotivationfactorofnovelty.

These results provide partial support for thefirst hypothesis in that some travel motiva-tions and some brand personality factors weresignificantly related to self-congruity. Theresults provide support for the secondhypoth-esis, indicatingstrongandsignificant relation-ships between destination features other thanbrandpersonalityanddestinationattitudes.Theresults provide no support for a link betweenself-congruity and destination attitude as ex-pressed in the third hypothesis.

The overall pattern of results did, however,suggest that the proposed conceptual modelmay be more complex in that self congruitymay be a link between motivation and brandpersonalityperceptions for sometypesof travel

motivations, specifically those related to nov-elty in the present setting. It was decidedtherefore to further explore differences withinthe sample in terms of travel motivation with aparticular focus on analysing in more detail thebivariate relationships between the variables inthe model.

In order to investigate further the relation-ships between travel motivation and the othervariables, respondents were clustered on thebasis of the nine expected benefit items in orderto identify groups with similar travel needs.K-means cluster solutions were run for twothrough four clusters, with the two cluster solu-tion producing meaningful segments of ade-quate and relatively equal group size (Cluster 1 =133 respondents, Cluster 2 = 119). Table 5presents the final cluster centres for the twogroups. Cluster 1 respondents placed signifi-cantly more importance than those in Cluster 2onallmotives, inparticularexperiencingexoticplaces (4.71 vs. 3.66), the opportunity to partic-ipate in exciting and novel experiences (4.70vs. 3.22) and the opportunity to learn about dif-ferent people and places (4.56 vs. 3.63). This isimportant given that the novelty motivationfactor was a significant contributor to theself-congruityregressionmodel.WhileCluster1 also placed relatively high importance on theopportunity to get away from the stress of mynormal routines, (4.70), this was the most dis-tinguishing motivator for respondents in Clus-ter 2. As a result Cluster 1 has been labelledNovel Learners and Cluster 2 was labelledEscapers.

Novel Learners were significantly youngerthat Escapers (32.7 vs. 42.6) and were morelikelytobefromoverseas(40.2vs.17.8).Whilemost respondents in both clusters were travel-


TABLE 4. Results of Multiple Regression Analyses

Beta t*

Dependent variable-Satisfaction with the destinationDistance to destination .674 5.5Brand personality-sincerity .763 5.4Travel party size �.429 �3.3Motivation-escape �.348 �2.6Dependent variable-Self-congruity indexBrand personality-sincerity �.623 �3.5Motivation-novelty �.427 �2.6

* all significant at the p < 0.01 level


ling with their spouse/partner, Novel Learnerswere more likely than Escapers to be travellingalone or with friends, while Escapers weremore likely to be travelling with family or in atour group (See Table 6). There were also dif-ferences in theusageof informationsourcesbe-tween the two clusters. Novel Learners weremore likely than Escapers to rely on informa-tion from other travellers (45.9% vs 30.3%),while Escapers had higher usage rates for; arti-cles in newspapers/magazines (42.0% vs30.1%), accommodation (12.6% vs 4.5%) andprevious experience (17.6% vs 9.8%). Friendsand family and the internet were the two mostimportant sources of information for bothclusters (Table 7).

Differences in Perceived Brand Personalityof the Regional Destination

Respondents rated the degree to which theyassociated J. Aaker’s (1997) 20 Brand Person-ality Items on a scale where 1 = not at all and 5 =very strongly. They were also provided with a‘not sure’ option (Table 8). At least 90% of re-spondentsprovideda ratingforall thepersonal-ity items with the exception of sincere (12.3%not sure), competent (11%), reliable (11.9%)and intelligent (11.2%). The reliability of thescale itemswas testedusingCronbach’sAlpha,resulting in an overall value of .944 and itemalphas ranging from .939 to .947. Respondentsin the Novel Learner cluster rated all but two ofthe brand personality items, sincere and upperclass, as being significantly more strongly asso-ciatedwiththeWhitsundaysthandidEscapers.

In order to explore the link between needs/motives and brand personality perceptions, thetwoclusterswerecomparedon thebasisof theirfactor scores. The results indicate that NovelLearners had significantly higher factor scoresthanEscapers for theExciting(.298vs.2.271, t=3.167, p = .002) and Rugged (.183 vs. �213, t =2.166, p = .032) brand personality factors, indi-cating that they more strongly associated thesetwo dimensions with the Whitsundays TheNovel Learners had stronger perceptions of thebrand personality of the destination overall.Theresultsalso indicated that thebrandperson-ality image that theyheldwasmatchedinpart tothe one desired by the DMO with a strong em-phasis on excitement. Further, the brand per-sonality perceptions of the Novel Learnerswere consistent with the types of experiencesthey sought, again with excitement at the coreof both their desired experiences and theirbrand personality perceptions.

Self-Congruity Levels

The next step in the analysis was to explorewhether this match between needs/motivesand destination brand perception for NovelLearners translated into stronger links withtheir perceived self-image. Novel Learnerswere more likely than Escapers to indicate thata Whitsundays holiday was consistent with;how they see themselves (2.52, vs. 3.11, t =�3.39, p = 001), how they would like to seethemselves(2.50vs.3.14, t=�3.628,p=.000),how theybelieveothers see them(2.83vs. 3.55,t = �3.84, p = .000) and how they would likeothers toseethem(2.77, t=�4.099,p=.000).


TABLE 5. Motivation Clusters

Cluster*

1 2

meet new people (t = 9.52) 3.96 2.61escape stress/routine (t = 2.81) 4.70 4.39learn new skills (t = 11.03) 3.82 2.37exotic places (t = 10.34) 4.71 3.66novel experiences (t = 14.22) 4.70 3.22physically active (t = 8.34) 4.11 3.09family/friends (t = 5.39) 4.17 3.42places can talk about (t = 7.86) 3.81 2.64learn people/places (t = 8.31) 4.56 3.63

* significant at p =.005


It is worth noting the high levels of missingresponses and respondents who chose the NotSure option for these questions. In total, 21% ofthe respondents either gave no answer or choseNot Sure for the first scale measuring congruitybetween a holiday at the destination and howthey see themselves, 18% did not give a ratingfor the congruity with how they would like tosee themselves, 20% did not give an agreementrating for congruity with how I believe otherssee me, and 19% did not give a rating for con-gruity with how I would like others to see me.Thesehighlevelssuggestsomechallengeswith

the use of these measures and possibly the ap-plicability of brand personality to tourismdestinations.

Relationship Between Self-CongruityIntentions to Visit, and Satisfactionwith the Regional Destination

Despite the fact that Novel Learners hadmore positive brand perceptions of, and stron-gerself-congruityratingswith, theWhitsundaysas a tourism destination, they were less likelythan Escapers to have previously visited


TABLE 6. Profile of Clusters

Characteristic Novel Learners(n = 133)

Escapers(n =119)

Gender (�2 = 2.83, p = .06)Male 39.4% 50.0%Female 60.6% 50.0%

Age (t = �5.626)Mean 32.7 42.6

Origin (�2 = 14.94)Australian 59.8% 82.2%International 40.2% 17.8%

Travel Party (�2 = 15.42)Alone 14.1% 9.8%Spouse 33.6% 38.4%Family 14.8% 21.4%Friends 17.5% 7.5%Tour group 4.7% 14.3%

TABLE 7. Differences in Information Source Usage

Information Source Novel Learners(n = 133)

Escapers(n = 119)

Friends/family 50.4% 48.7%The internet 48.1% 41.2%Other travellers* 45.9% 30.3%Travel agent 39.1% 34.5%Articles in newspapers/magazines* 30.1% 42.0%Books/library 25.6% 18.5%Brochures picked up outside region 17.3% 12.6%Brochures picked up in the region 16.5% 15.1%Tour operator/company 9.8% 7.6%Been before* 9.8% 17.6%Booking/information centres in region 6.0% 10.1%Accommodation* 4.5% 12.6%Automobile Association 0.8% 2.8%

*significant difference at p=.05


(54.2% vs. 73.9% respectively, �2 = 10.5, p =.001). However, those Novel Learners who hadpreviously visited were significantly more sat-isfied with their experience (9.06 vs. 8.32 out of10, t=2.433,p= .016).Therewasnosignificantdifference between the two clusters with re-spect to intentions to visit. The Novel Learnerswere much more likely to be international visi-tors and this supports an argument that their ac-tual travel patterns were more likely to be sub-ject to opportunity constraints. In an open-ended question seeking reasons for not visitingthe Novel Learners were more likely to reportthat thedestinationwas toofar fromhome(17%of responses as compared to 12% of theescapers).

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the results from the regressionanalyses identified that there was partial sup-port for the study hypotheses, indicating a po-

tential relationship between some of the keyvariables in the proposed destination brandingconceptual framework. More specifically, theresults indicated that perceived self-congruitywith a destination may be linked to motivationand brand personality perceptions. However,further analysis was needed to explore the rela-tionship between motivation, brand personal-ity perceptions, self-congruity, and intention tovisit and satisfaction. The resulting motiva-tion-based segmentation of respondents re-sulted in two segments, the first of which waslabelled the Novel Learners because of theiremphasis on experiencing new and exoticplaces, excitement and learning about people,places and new skills. Respondents in thisgroup were younger, more likely to be interna-tional, and more likely to get their informationfrom other travellers. They were also signifi-cantlymore likely to describe the personalityofthe regional destination as exciting and rugged.For this group there was consistency betweenthe types of holiday experience sought and the


TABLE 8. Aaker’s Brand Personality Descriptors*

Personality Descriptor(1 = not at all, 5 = strongly)

% not sure Novel Learners(n = 133)

Escapers(n = 119)

Sincere 12.3 3.05 2.78Down to Earth 5.4 3.57 3.11*Honest 9.5 3.31 2.95*Wholesome 7.8 3.71 3.31*Cheerful 3.9 4.35 4.08*

Exciting 3.9 4.36 3.84*Daring 6.5 3.78 3.06*Spirited 4.7 4.07 3.33*Imaginative 4.3 3.92 3.30*Up to date 8.0 3.88 3.48*

Competent 11.0 3.84 3.46*Reliable 11.9 3.73 3.41*Intelligent 11.2 3.37 2.93*Successful 7.5 3.94 3.42*

Sophisticated 6.3 3.45 2.90*Upper class 4.5 3.17 2.96Charming 5.2 3.76 3.32*

Rugged 6.5 3.42 2.71*Outdoorsy 5.0 4.21 3.89*Tough 5.8 2.92 2.45*

* independent t-tests indicate significantly different at p =.05


perceived brand personality of the destinationand between the perceived brand personality ofthe region and the main elements of the in-tended brand image promoted by the DMO. Asproposed by the conceptual model set out inFigure 1, this consistency between needs andbrand personality perceptions was associatedwith higher levels of self-congruity on all themeasuresused in thisstudy.Thesehigher levelsof self-congruity were associated with highersatisfaction for those who had been to the re-gion but not with stronger intentions to visit.The patternof results supports the framework’slink between other elements of the destinationimage such as distance and cost and intention totravel. In the present study it appears that al-though the Novel Learners reported a strong,positiveassociationbetweentheperceiveddes-tinationbrand personalityand their self- image,their intention to visit the destinationwas medi-ated by their perceptions of travel constraintsand opportunities.

The other market segment identified was la-belled Escapers and these tourists were morelikely to be older Australian couples who reliedmore on their previous visits to the region andarticles in newspapers for information aboutthe region. This market segment had lowerscores on all the personality descriptors and thepattern of results suggested a less strong brandpersonality perception for this destination andnotonecloselymatchedto theirdesiredholidayoutcomes. Consistent with the proposed con-ceptual model, these tourists did not scorehighly on the self-congruity measures. Lowerself-congruity was associated with lower satis-faction for those Escapers who had been to thedestination. As with the Novel Learners, thelink between self-congruity and intention tovisit was not strong, again highlighting the im-portant role of perceptions about constraintsand opportunities to travel to the destinationregion.

The overall pattern of the results supports anumberof theassumptions thathavebeenmadeabout the destination branding process. In par-ticular the results support the importance ofbuildinga strong associationbetween the desti-nation and a brand personality. The presentstudy however, supports the addition of a con-dition to this proposal as suggested by Hosanyand Ekinci (2003) and Ekinci (2003)–that the

perceived brand personality must also matchthe needs of the tourists. It is this matching thatcontributes to perceived self-congruity, whichin turn is related to more positive outcomes,consistent with the claims of Surgy and Su(2000).However,given thehighnon-response/not sure rate, further developments in the mea-surement of self-congruity in a tourism contextis needed, in particular the need to determinewhether there exists a portion of the market forwhom this concept does not apply.

Theresultsof thepresentstudysupported theneed to consider all elements of the destinationimage not just those related to the destinationbrand and itspersonalitycharacteristics. In par-ticular, it suggests that measures of perceivedtravel constraints and opportunities would bevaluable additions to any further studies intodestination branding. The results also indicatethe existence of two potential markets of the re-gional destination studied. Much of the discus-sionofdestinationbranding implicitlyassumesa single brand personality profile for a destina-tion and there has been little, if any, explicitconsideration of the implications for destina-tion banding of marketing for a range of marketsegments. Arguably most tourist destinationsneed more than one market to survive. Thisraises the question of whether or not destina-tions should or could have multiple brand per-sonalities. It also highlights the need to focuslimited marketing resources on those marketsfor which there is a positive destination brandperception and strong self-congruence.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York:Free Press.

Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Jour-nal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.

Aaker, J., & Fournier, S. (1995). A brand as a character,a partner and a person: Three perspectives on thequestion of brand personality. Advances in ConsumerResearch, 22(1), 391-395.

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior.Chicago: Dorsey Press.

Ajzen, I. (1992). Persuasive communication theory insocial psychology: A historical perspective. M. J.Manfredo (Ed.), Influencing human behaviour (pp.1-28). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Asher, H. B. (1976). Causal modeling. Beverly Hills:Sage.



Cai, L. A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural desti-nation. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 720-742.

Caldwell, N., & Freire, J. R. (2004). The differencesbetween branding a country, a region and a city:Applying the Brand Box Model. Journal of BrandManagement, 12(1), 50-61.

Chon, K.-S. (1992). Self-image/destination image con-gruity. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 360-376.

Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D., & Wanhill,S. (2005). Tourism principles and practices (3rd ed.).Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education.

Curtis, J. (2001). Branding a state: The evolution of brandOregon. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 7(1), 75-81.

De Chernatony, L., & McDonald, M. (2001). Creatingpowerful brands in consumer, service and industrialmarkets. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Ekinci, Y. (2003). From destination image to destina-tion branding: An emerging area of research. e-Re-view of Tourism Research (eRTR), 1(2), 1-4.

Frochot, I., & Morrison, A. (2000). Benefit segmenta-tion: A review of its applications to travel and tour-ism research. Journal of Travel and Tourism Market-ing, 9(4), 21-46.

Gilmore, F. (2002). A country–Can it be repositioned?Spain–The success story of country branding. Jour-nal of Brand Management, 9(4/5), 218-284.

Goh, H., & Litvin, S. (2000, June). Destination prefer-ence and self-congruity. In Travel and Tourism Re-search Association Annual Conference Proceedings(pp. 197-203). Burbank, CA: Travel and TourismResearch Association.

Hall, J. (2004). Branding Britain. Journal of VacationMarketing, 10(2), 171-185.

Hankinson, G. (2001). Location branding: A study ofthe branding practices of 12 English cities. Journalof Brand Management, 9(2),127-142.

Henderson, J. (2000). Selling places: The new Asia-Sin-gapore brand. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 11(1),36-44.

Hosany, S., & Ekinci, Y. (2003). An application of thebrand personality scale into tourist destinations: Can des-tinations be branded. Proceedings of the 34th AnnualTTRA Conference (pp. 1-11). St Louis, USA: TTRA.

Konecnik, M. (2004). Evaluating Slovenia’s image as atourism destination: A self-analysis process towardsbuilding a destination brand. Journal of Brand Man-agement, 11(4), 307-317.

King, J. (2002). Destination marketing organisations–Connecting the experience rather than promoting theplace. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8(2), 105-108.

Malhotra, N. K. (1981). A scale to measure self-con-cepts, person concepts and product concepts. Journalof Marketing Research, 18(4), 456-464.

Malhotra, N. K. (1988). Self-concept and product choice:An integrated perspective. Journal of Economic Psy-chology, 9(1), 1-28.

Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2002). NewZealand, 100% pure: The creation of a powerfulniche destination brand. Journal of Brand Manage-ment, 9(4/5), 335-354.

Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2003). Desti-nation branding and the role of the stakeholders: Thecase of New Zealand. Journal of Vacation Market-ing, 9(3), 285-299.

Pike, S. (2002). Destination image analysis–A review of142 papers from 1973-2000. Tourism Management,23(5), 541-549.

Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experienceeconomy: Work is theatre and every business a stage.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Pride, R. (2002). Brand Wales: ‘Natural Revival’. InN. J. Morgan, A. Pritchard, & R. Pride (Eds.), Des-tination branding: Creating the unique destinationproposition (pp. 109-123). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Ryan, C. (1995). Researching tourist satisfaction. Lon-don: Routledge.

Schmitt, B., & Simonson, A. (1997). Marketing aesthet-ics: The strategic management of brands, identityand image. New York: The Free Press.

Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park,J.-O., Chon, K.-S., Clarborne, C. B., et al. (1997).Assessing the predictive validity of two methods ofmeasuring self-congruence. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, 25(3), 229-241.

Sirgy, M. J., & Su, C. (2000). Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behaviour: Toward an integra-tive model. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 340-352.

Slater, J. (2002). Brand Louisiana: ‘Come as you are.Leave Different.(r)’. In N. J. Morgan, A. Pritchard,& R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding: Creatingthe unique destination proposition (pp. 148-162).Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Tourism Queensland. (2004). Draft Whitsundays Desti-nation Management Plan 2004-2007. Queensland:Tourism Queensland Corporate Planning.

SUBMITTED: February 1, 2006FINAL REVISION SUBMITTED:

August 11, 2006ACCEPTED: September 3, 2006REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY

doi:10.1300/J073v22n02_04



linking travel motivation, tourist self image and destination brand personality

Documents