Experience-based Brand Personality as a Source of Value Co-creation: The Case of Lofoten

Transcription

1 Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 2015 Vol. 15, Supplement 1, 48 61, Experience-based Brand Personality as a Source of Value Co-creation: The Case of Lofoten PER IVAR SELJESETH & TOR KORNELIUSSEN Bodø Graduate School of Business, University of Nordland, Bodø, Norway ABSTRACT A tourist destination s brand personality (TDBP) can be measured by asking tourists which personality traits they associate with the destination. A tourist who experiences a TDBP that is in congruence with the tourist s self-image will favor the tourist destination. Such congruence between the tourist and the tourist destination facilitates co-creation of experiences during the holiday. This paper replicates and extends previous research by investigating the reliability and validity of a measurement instrument for tourist destination brand personality. It shows how this measurement instrument can assist firms and tourists in their co-creation of experience value by providing a foundation for dialogue, access, risk assessment and transparency. Questionnaire data were collected from a sample of 234 tourists on holiday in a nature-based tourist destination. The analysis shows that the measurement instrument works relatively well, and it indicates that the brand personality of this tourist destination consists of four dimensions: ruggedness, sophistication, naturalness and activeness. This study validates a measuring instrument for tourist destinations brand personality using a sample consisting exclusively of tourists who are on holiday at the investigated destination. Implications and opportunities for further research are suggested. KEY WORDS: experience value, co-creation, brand personality, destination branding Introduction A tourist destination s brand personality (TDBP) is defined as the set of human characteristics associated with a destination (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006, p. 3). TDBP is a good metaphor for understanding tourists perception of a tourist destination (Morgan, Pritchard, & Piggott, 2002). TDBP can be measured by asking tourists which personality traits they associate with a destination. The service literature has historically highlighted co-production (Lovelock & Young, 1979; Mills, 1986) as a higher degree of customer involvement during the exchange process (Bitner, Faranda, Hubbert, & Zeithaml, 1997). In customization the value is created in the production process, whereas in co-creation the value is Correspondence Address: Per Ivar Seljeseth, Bodø Graduate School of Business, University of Nordland, Bodø, Norway. pis@uin.no # 2015 Taylor & Francis

2 Experience-based Brand Personality as a Source of Value Co-creation 49 created in the consumption process (Kristensson, Matthing, & Johansson, 2008; Lusch, Vargo, & O Brien, 2007; Michel, Brown, & Gallan, 2008). The customer s self-created experiences reflect how individuals want to interact with the experience environment that the firms facilitate (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Informed, connected, empowered and active customers understand that they too can extract value at the traditional point of exchange (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). The perceived brand personality can be shaped and influenced by experiences that a customer has with the brand (Plummer, 1985). Examples of such experiences can be direct tourist experience at the destination and indirect experience through, for example, exposure to advertisements (Yuksel & Bilim, 2009). A TDBP s importance for a tourist s value co-creation can be influenced by the tourist s indirect pre-experience (e.g. advertising) with the destination, since advertising is one of the key elements building a brand personality (Anderson & Rubin, 1986; Blythe, 2007; Brassington & Pettitt, 2000; Okazaki, 2006; Rajagopal, 2006). The more similar the perceived personality of the tourist destination is to the tourist s self-image, the more favorable the evaluation of the destination would be (Yuksel & Bilim, 2009). Hence, a tourist destination may be able to attract tourists with a self-image in accordance with the TDBP. Congruence between a tourist s personality and the destination s brand personality can help support a valuable co-creation of a tourist s experiences during a stay at the tourist destination. Murphy, Benchendorff, and Moscardo (2007) find that tourists are more satisfied with a holiday visit when the tourist s self-image is in accordance with the TDBP. In this perspective such congruence creates value for the tourists. There is strong documentation of TDBP s positive effects on tourist experience and value creation in marketing and branding. Still, research on TDBP is in an exploratory stage (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006). There is, for example, no valid instrument for measuring TDBP. The aim of this research is therefore to try to validate such an instrument. The research question of the present study is: Is the selected measurement instrument suitable for measuring the brand personality of a nature-based tourist destination? Furthermore, what is the dimensional structure of such a destination? Without a reliable and valid measurement instrument, it is difficult to know what the perceived brand personality of a nature-based tourist destination is. It will therefore be hard to achieve congruence between tourists personalities and the destination s brand personality and difficult to facilitate the co-creation of value between tourists and a destination. The present study builds on the research of Aaker (1997). There are five empirical studies (i.e. Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Kim & Lehto, 2013; Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011; Yuksel & Bilim, 2009) of the brand personality of a tourist destination, and they all use variations of Aaker s (1997) measurement instrument. Although generally well-crafted, the results of these studies varied much as they show that the brand personality of a tourist destination may have three (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007), four (Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007), five (Usakli & Baloglu, 2011) and seven dimensions (Kim & Lehto, 2013). It is therefore not clear how many dimensions a TDBP consists of. This inequality in dimensions shows that the measuring tool is unstable across measurements (Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007). There is therefore a need for additional studies to refine and develop a more valid and reliable

3 50 P. I. Seljeseth & T. Korneliussen instrument for measuring a TDBP (Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007). As there is a lack of a priori information about the factor structure of the brand personality of nature-based tourist destinations, we believe that this substantial area is still not so mature that this concept can be tested by confirmatory factor analysis. As shown in a Monte Carlos study by Gerbing and Hamilton (1996) exploratory factor analysis can be useful for model-specification before cross-validation with confirmatory factor analysis. We will therefore use exploratory factor analysis as our test strategy. Further, there were possible weaknesses related to the selection of respondents of some studies, as it is uncertainty about whether all respondents in the previous studies were tourists and whether all respondents had adequate experience and knowledge about the destination they were asked to evaluate. The contribution of this study is to replicate and extend the research done by Ekinci and Hosany (2006), Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007), Kim and Lehto (2013), Usakli and Baloglu (2011) and Yuksel and Bilim (2009). We make sure that the respondents of this study are tourists at the destination, and thus in a position to evaluate the brand personality of the selected tourist destination. The next section reviews the relevant literature. The methodology, analysis and results follow. The paper ends with a conclusion, implications and suggestions for further research. Theoretical Framework Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2013, p. 12) suggest that a new point of view is required; one that allows individual customers to actively construct their own consumption experiences through personalized interaction, thereby co-creating unique values for themselves. The future of innovation is co-creation of value through personalized experience (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2003), because consumers seek to exercise their influence on the firm, and they want to interact and co-create value together with the firm (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). The three main drivers of co-creation of experience value (e.g. Prebensen, Vittersø, & Dahl, 2013) are dialogue, risk assessment and transparency (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). TDBP provides differentiation and transparency about attributes and characteristics of the tourist destination. This can serve as a basis for comparison, dialogue and experience value. The creation of this experience value is governed by the tourist (Vargo & Luch, 2004) and partly depends on the tourist s operant resources. Since operant resources are individual and heterogeneous, access to a TDBP helps the tourist to understand what experience value can be achieved at the specific destination, and how it can be co-created by the traveler and the destination. TDBP helps firms and the tourist to evaluate whether co-creation of experience can in any way harm the consumer. A TDBP may therefore be important to help a tourist with their risk assessment and to achieve the expected vacation experience. A clear and attractive TDBP can provide a foundation for dialogue, access, risk assessment and transparency (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). TDBP can also create symbolic effects for the consumer (Aaker, 1996), and can thus make a holiday a status symbol and an expression of a lifestyle (Aaker, 1996). TDBP is important for differentiating the destinations (Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff,

4 Experience-based Brand Personality as a Source of Value Co-creation ) and is essential for building a tourist destination as a brand (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006). TDBP creates a unique identity for the tourist destination (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006) and may help to improve the destination s image (Hosany, Ekinci, & Uysal, 2006). TDBP can affect the preference for and choice of a tourist destination (Murphy, Benchendorff, & Moscardo, 2007), and may increase the demand for the destination (Crockett & Wood, 2002). TDBP can enhance a tourist s loyalty to a destination (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006). Building TDBP is very different from traditional marketing of tourist destinations, which mainly promotes specific attributes and activities (Murphy, Benchendorff, & Moscardo, 2007). Although access to information about TDBP is very useful for co-creation of experience value, there still are only five published studies of the brand personality of tourist destinations (i.e. Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011; Kim & Lehto, 2013; Yuksel & Bilim, 2009). These five studies build on the research of Aaker (1997). We therefore start by reviewing this study. Aaker s (1997) study was done across industry sectors and was based on 309 adjectives from the so-called Big Five personality traits of psychology. Aaker (1997) used principal component analysis to reduce these 309 adjectives to a more manageable 42 personality traits that loaded on five dimensions. A further principal component analysis reduced these 42 personality traits to 15 personality traits that loaded on five dimensions (Aaker, 1997). The dimensions and associated personality traits were:. Sincerity: down-to-earth, honest, wholesome and cheerful.. Excitement: daring, spirited, imaginative and up-to-date.. Competence: reliable, intelligent and successful.. Sophistication: upper class and charming.. Ruggedness: outdoorsy and tough. The five empirical studies (i.e. Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Kim & Lehto, 2013; Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011; Yuksel & Bilim, 2009) of the brand personality of a tourist destination use variations of this measurement instrument developed by Aaker (1997). The first attempt to validate Aaker s (1997) industry-neutral brand personality scale on a tourist destination was made by Ekinci and Hosany (2006). They asked a group of British respondents to associate Aaker s (1997) 42 personality traits with their most recently visited tourist destination. They found 27 personality traits to be well suited to describe the visited tourist destinations. Ekinci and Hosany (2006) tested the validity of these 27 personality traits by asking two samples of tourists how strongly these traits could be associated with their most recently visited tourist destination. They identified 12 personality traits loading on three dimensions that described the data well. The dimensions and associated personality traits were:. Sincerity: reliable, sincere, intelligent, successful and wholesome.. Excitement: exciting, daring, original and spirited.. Conviviality: friendly, family-oriented and charming. Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007) was the first published study that has measured TDBP by asking respondents to rate a specific tourist destination rather than

5 52 P. I. Seljeseth & T. Korneliussen the most recently visited tourist destination. The sample was collected on a transport route between the two tourist destinations that were measured Whitsundays region and Cairns region in Queensland, Australia. The sample consisted of Australian and foreign tourists who had visited one, both or neither of the destinations, as well as residents in the region. So as not to wear out the respondents, Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007) used Aaker s (1997) 15 personality traits, and added five personality traits with similar names that Aaker (1997) gave to the five dimensions. The data from Whitsundays region identified the following four dimensions and associated personality traits:. Upper class: sophisticated, successful, intelligent, charming, reliable and up-to-date, competent.. Honest: sincere, down-to-earth, wholesome, reliable and outdoorsy.. Exiting: cheerful, spirited and imaginative.. Tough: rugged and daring. The data from Cairns region identified these three dimensions and associated personality traits:. Sincere: honest, down-to-earth, wholesome, competent, reliable and intelligent.. Sophisticated: up-to-date, successful, upper class, imaginative and cheerful.. Outdoorsy: rugged, daring, exciting, tough, spirited and charming. Since the explorative factor analysis of the data from Whitsundays region resulted in a solution of four factors, whereas that of the Cairns region resulted in three factors, Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007) concluded that the measuring instrument was unstable across tourist destinations. Usakli and Baloglu (2011) examined the TDBP of Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, by using two steps to develop the research variables. In the first step, 28 tourists were asked to write down the personality traits that first came to their minds when thinking of Las Vegas. Nine traits were mentioned by over 25% of the tourists. In the next step, the same 28 tourists contributed to the analysis of the content validity of the 42 personality traits from Aaker (1997). This analysis generated 23 personality traits, and because three of them were similar to those nine found in the first step, they used 29 personality traits to measure the TDBP of Las Vegas. An exploratory factor analysis of data collected from a convenience sample of 368 respondents resulted in five dimensions with 24 associated personality traits:. Vibrancy: energetic, alive, vibrant, showy, exciting, sexy and daring.. Sophistication: feminine, charming, upper class, good looking and glamorous.. Competence: leader, successful, confident, independent and intelligent.. Contemporary: unique, up-to-date, imaginative, young and trendy.. Sincerity: friendly and cheerful. Kim and Lehto (2013) examine the TDBP of South Korea among US travelers. First, the respondents were asked to provide the first three words that come to mind when they think of South Korea as a tourist destination, in terms of general characteristics and the atmosphere or mood. Second, the respondents were asked to evaluate South Korea using Aaker s (1997) brand personality scale with 42 personality traits. An

6 Experience-based Brand Personality as a Source of Value Co-creation 53 exploratory factor analysis of data collected from a sample of 480 respondents resulted in seven dimensions with 39 associated personality traits:. Excitement: trendy, exciting, cool, young, spirited, contemporary, up-to-date, imaginative, daring and independent.. Competence: corporate, successful, technical, leader, confident, intelligent, hardworking and secure.. Sincerity: sincere, honest, real, wholesome, reliable, down to earth and friendly.. Sophistication: feminine, good-looking, glamorous, charming, smooth and upper class.. Ruggedness: rugged, tough, masculine and outdoorsy.. Uniqueness: original and unique.. Family orientation: sentimental and family-orientated. Yuksel and Bilim (2009) made a contribution to this research topic by examining the relationship between holiday motives, tourists self-image and TDBP. Yuksel and Bilim s (2009) findings are important for documenting TDBP s impact on co-creation, but the purpose of Yuksel and Bilim s (2009) study is not to validate a measurement instrument for TDBP, and they use a quite different set of variables in investigating TDBP. Their findings will therefore not be examined in comparison with the findings in our study. Ekinci and Hosany (2006) and Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007) contributed with the most significant published study of TDBP in relation to the purpose of our study. Both these studies suffer from weaknesses related to the sample. The study done by Ekinci and Hosany (2006) asked respondents to evaluate the brand personality of the most recent tourism destination they had visited. Consequently the respondents would evaluate different tourism destinations, while the purpose of the tool is to measure the TDBP of a specific tourist destination. In the study by Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007) there is uncertainty related to the sample. First, the sample includes an unreported number of respondents who are local inhabitants and not tourists. The problem with including local inhabitants in the sample may be that they may have different needs, interests and impressions of a destination than those of tourists. In addition, there is uncertainty about what kind of knowledge the respondents have about the tourist destinations. The respondents may have visited either the Whitsundays region or the Cairns region, both regions, and neither of these two tourist destinations. Methodology Across-sectionalsurveydesignwasusedtoinvestigatetheresearchquestion,using personal inquiry and questionnaire for self-completion. The target population is summer tourists visiting Lofoten, a nature-based tourist destination in Nordland, in the northern part of Norway. A sample of 234 respondents was personally contacted outdoors at resting places, restaurants, and in cars and boats in Svolvær, the center of Lofoten. First, they were asked if they were visiting Lofoten as tourists and, if so, they were asked to fill in a questionnaire. By contacting tourists at their holiday destination, we ensured that the respondents have actual experience as tourists in Lofoten.

7 54 P. I. Seljeseth & T. Korneliussen Using a homogeneous sample of Norwegian tourists allows us to control for random sources of error (Calder, Phillips, & Tybout, 1981). The data in the present study were collected in 2010, and this was the first study to use a sample exclusively consisting of tourists on holiday in the examined destination. As actual tourists at the destination were examined, they should be in a good position to evaluate the TDBP of the selected destination, Lofoten. The sample consists of 54.3% men and 45.3% women. The average age is 45.8 years. The average years of higher education are slightly below two years (1.84). The average income is NOK 460,000 (about USD 75,000). We have followed commonly agreed upon procedures for determination of the dimensionality of a construct (Churchill, 1979). The measurement instrument uses the same 20 personality traits as those of Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007), because their study was the state of the art, and we want to compare our factor structure with the results from previous studies. The personality traits are based on Aaker s (1997) original instrument for measuring brand personality ( Brand Personality Scale ). The measurement instrument includes the 20 personality traits shown in Table 1. All items are measured using a five-point Likert scale anchored by to a very small degree (1), to a small degree (2), neither large or small degree (3), to a large degree (4) and to a very large degree (5). The same type of five-point Likert scale was used by Aaker (1997), Ekinci and Hosany (2006), Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007), Usakli and Baloglu (2011) and Kim and Lehto (2013), although different descriptions were used on the anchors. The data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis. Ekinci and Hosany (2006), Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007), Usakli and Baloglu (2011) and Kim and Lehto (2013) were also using exploratory factor analysis to analyze their data. The results of these studies should therefore be comparable. This analysis used a rule of thumb from Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010) that specifies that factor loads greater than 0.50 are generally considered necessary for practical significance. There is no statistical guideline for evaluating the variables communality, but.50 will in many cases be regarded as a minimum for keeping the variable in the analysis (Hair et al., 2010). Findings and Discussion The Kaiser Meyer Olkin measure gave the value of 0.828, indicating that the sample size is adequate for the number of traits in the study and that explorative factor analysis Table 1. Personality traits. Charming Exciting Reliable Successful Cheerful Honest Rugged Tough Competent Imaginative Sincere Upper class Daring Intelligent Sophisticated Up-to-date Down-to-earth Outdoorsy Spirited Wholesome

8 Experience-based Brand Personality as a Source of Value Co-creation 55 should be an appropriate analysis technique (Hair et al., 2010). Barlett s test is statistically significant with a value of This indicates that there are sufficient correlations among the variables to use exploratory factor analysis (Hair et al., 2010). The exploratory factor analysis identified four factors with eigenvalues larger than 1.0, and the results are shown in Table 2. Thefactorsexplainrespectively28.48,11.08, 8.59 and 7.16% of the variance in the data. This amounted to 55.31% of the total variance in the data. All four factors have Cronbach s alpha higher than the minimum requirement of 0.6 suggested for exploratory research (Hair et al., 2010). The first factor consists of five personality traits with loadings higher than.5. These are: rugged (0.822), tough (0.871), outdoorsy (0.756), charming (0.574) and exciting (0.572). These personality traits have no high cross-loading on other factors. The personality trait daring cross-loads on the first factor with and the fourth factor with Ruggedness is chosen as the name for this factor because this term Table 2. The factor structure of brand personality. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Ruggedness Sophistication Naturalness Activeness Communality Rugged Tough Outdoorsy Charming Exciting Intelligent Sophisticated Competent Up-to-date Upper class Successful Cheerful Honest Down-to-earth Sincere Wholesome Reliable Imaginative Spirited Daring Eigenvalue Explained variance Cronbach s alpha

9 56 P. I. Seljeseth & T. Korneliussen seems to be adequate for the five personality traits that load on the factor. Aaker (1997) has previously used ruggedness as a label of a similar factor, while Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007) used the close synonym tough as a factor name for a comparable factor in their study of the Whitsundays region and the label outdoorsy in their study of the Cairns region. The first factor s eigenvalue is 5.70 and the explained variance is 28.48%. Cronbach s alpha is 0.8. The personality traits that load on ruggedness identified in our survey have great similarity with the personality traits that load on outdoorsy identified by Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007) examination of the Cairns region. The second factor consists of seven personality traits with loadings of about.5 or higher. These are: intelligent (0.686), sophisticated (0.676), competent (0.656), up-to-date (0.623), upper class (0.617), successful (0.535) and cheerful (0.493). These personality traits have no large cross-loadings on other factors, except cheerful which also loads on the third factor with a factor loading of The personality trait reliable loads on the second factor with a factor loading of and loads on the third factor with Since the personality trait reliable has loadings of about.5 and higher on two factors we suggest removing this personality trait from the measurement instrument. Sophistication is chosen as the name of the second factor because this term seems to be adequate for the personality traits that load on the factor. Aaker (1997) and Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007) used respectively sophistication and sophisticated as names to their comparable factors. The second factor has an eigenvalue of 2.22 and an explained variance of 11.08%. Cronbach s alpha is 0.8. Our factor, sophistication, has a great similarity with the factor upper class from the study of the Whitsundays region (Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007) as both factors contain the same six personality traits (intelligent, sophisticated, competent, up-to-date, upper class and successful). The results of the exploratory factor analysis of our data and the data from the Whitsundays region (Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007) suggest that the factor sophistication is well suited to describe the brand personality of a nature-based tourist destination. The third factor consists of five personality traits with loadings higher than.5. These are: honest (0.746), down-to-earth (0.653), sincere (0.641), wholesome (0.640) and reliable (0.558). Four of these personality traits have very low cross-loading on other factors, while the personality trait reliable loads relatively high on the second factor (sophistication) with a factor loading of Reliable is therefore suggested to be removed from the measurement instrument. The personality trait imaginative cross-loads on the third factor with a factor loading of 0.382, and the fourth factor with Naturalness is chosen as the name of this factor given the personality traits that load on the factor. This third factor has an eigenvalue of 1.72 and an explained variance of 8.59%. Cronbach s alpha is 0.8. The factor naturalness of our study has great similarity with the corresponding factors identified by Aaker (1997) and Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007). The same four personality traits (honest, sincere, down-to-earth and wholesome) load on a factor called naturalness in our study, on a factor named honesty in the study of Whitsundays (Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007) and on a factor labeled sincerity in both the Cairns study (Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007) and Aaker s (1997) study. All four

10 Experience-based Brand Personality as a Source of Value Co-creation 57 of these studies find that the personality traits honest, sincere, down-to-earth and wholesome load on the same factor. This suggests that honest, sincere, down-to-earth and wholesome are well-suited personality traits to describe the brand personality of a nature-based tourism destination. The fourth factor consists of three personality traits with loadings above.5. These are: imaginative (0.658), spirited (0.645) and daring (0.578). We name this factor activeness. The personality trait daring has a relatively high cross-loading (0.432) on the first factor (ruggedness), and the personality trait imaginative has a relatively high cross-loading (0.382) on the third factor (naturalness). Aaker (1997) chooses the name excitement for the factor that the personality traits daring, spirited, imaginative and up-to-date loaded on. Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007) selected the name exciting on the factor that excitement, cheerful, spirited and imaginative loaded on. One main reason that excitement is not selected as a factor name in our study is that the personality trait exciting loaded on the first factor (ruggedness) in our study. This fourth factor has an eigenvalue of 1.43 and an explained variance of 8.59%. Cronbach s alpha is 0.6. The factor activeness in our study is very similar to the factor Aaker (1997) calls excitement. The exploratory factor analysis by Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007) on the data from the Whitsundays region resulted in a factor they also called excitement. Two of these personality traits (imaginative and spirited) loaded on this factor. The factor identified in our study, the Whitsundays region study (Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007), and the study of Aaker (1997) is very similar. This suggests that activeness (or excitement) is well suited for describing the brand personality of a nature-based tourist destination. These three studies show that the personality traits imaginative and spirited load on this factor. As shown in Table 2, thecommunalitiesofthepersonalitytraitsarebetween0.41 and Four personality traits (excitement, spirited, cheerful and successful) have communalities marginally below the minimum requirement of.5 suggested by Hair et al. (2010). The personality trait up-to-date (0.41) is slightly below the minimum requirement, but is retained because it has a high loading (0.62) on only one factor (sophistication) and the cross-loadings are very low. Conclusion and Implications A TDBP can be measured by asking tourists which personality traits they associate with the destination, and our study confirms that tourists are able to associate personality traits with a tourist destination. The perceived brand personality is shaped and influenced by direct and indirect experiences a customer has with a brand (Plummer, 1985). Yuksel and Bilim (2009) investigate the tourist s indirect experience through, for example, advertisements, and find that the more similar the TDBP and the tourist s self-image are, the more favorable the tourist will be toward the tourist destination. Thus, when an attractive TDBP is promoted through advertising, the destination may attract tourists with a similar selfimage. This congruence between the tourist s personality/self-image and the destination s brand personality will facilitate the opportunity for valuable co-creation of the tourist s experiences during his/her stay at the destination. Murphy, Benchendorff, and Moscardo (2007) find that this congruence creates value for the tourists, because

11 58 P. I. Seljeseth & T. Korneliussen tourists are more satisfied with a holiday visit when the tourist s self-image is in accordance with the destination s brand personality. From the tourists point of view, a distinctively promoted TDBP will increase the transparency and thus improve the tourist s co-creation of experience value. The promoted TDBP will give guidance on what fits your personality/self-image, and will help the tourist make better choices of tourist destinations, activities, type of accommodation, fellow travelers, etc. From the tourist destination s point of view, the destination needs to promote a TDBP that attracts tourists with a similar personality/self-image, for the best possible co-creation of experience value and satisfaction. This paper replicates and extends previous research by investigating the reliability and validity of a measurement instrument for tourist destination brand personality. This study investigates the brand personality of a nature-based tourist destination. This research has tried to validate the measurement instrument used by Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007). We use a measurement instrument consisting of 20 personality traits, according to previous research on tourist destinations brand personality. Questionnaire data were collected from a sample of 234 tourists on holiday at Lofoten in Norway, a nature-based tourist destination. The empirical data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis and resulted in four factors named: ruggedness, sophistication, naturalness and activeness. Our study shows that tourists are able to associate personality traits with the tourist destination, and these associations can be measured with our measurement instrument. It seems that this measurement instrument for TDBP works rather well, and that with some small adjustments it can be used for empirical measurement of TDBP. The dimensions that emerged in the exploratory factor analysis of the data from our study are compared with the dimensions identified by Aaker (1997) and Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007). We conclude that there is a great similarity between the results from our study and Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007) finding from the Whitsundays region of Queensland, Australia. Although the names of the dimensions are somewhat different (ruggedness vs. tough, sophistication vs. upper class, naturalness vs. honest and activeness vs. exciting), we conclude that the measuring instrument of TDBP has a reasonably good reliability and validity. This suggests that the measurement instrument used by this study and by Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007) may work satisfactorily for empirical measurement and description of TDBP of nature-based tourist destinations. Another important finding of this study is that the personality traits within each factor have a conceptually more consistent meaning than those of Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff (2007) and Aaker (1997). The findings in this study are highly relevant to marketers of tourist destinations. The results show that tourists associate personality traits with tourist destinations, and that the measurement instrument is able to measure these associations. Tourist destinations managers can use this instrument for analyzing and designing the tourist experience, visual information like advertisement and planning toward a better co-creation of experience value through dialogue, access and risk assessment. The tourist destination must offer and promote a TDBP similar to the self-image to their target market customers. The more similar the TDBP is with the tourist s selfimage, the more favorable the destination would be (Yuksel & Bilim, 2009), and the destination will attract customers that better fit what the destination offers. Such

12 Experience-based Brand Personality as a Source of Value Co-creation 59 congruence enhances the opportunities for co-creation of experience value. It will increase the tourist s experience value and thus the tourist s satisfaction, repurchase and recommendations to others. Increased customer interaction on social media in the future will influence firms and increase the co-creation with customers. The brand personality concept is an important contribution for enhancing, analyzing and managing the co-creation of experience value. The validated instrument can be used to identify the personality traits that build the various dimensions of a TDBP, both in, for example, advertising and the tourist product. A distinctive and attractive brand personality has several documented marketing effects beyond co-creation of experience value. Marketers of tourist destinations should therefore strive to create a clear and attractive brand personality. Increased competition in the global tourism industry requires more sophisticated marketing and branding. The validated instrument can be used to identify the personality traits that build the desired dimensions of a TDBP. Attractive personality traits can be implemented and advertising can highlight tourist activities and guests promoting the intended TDBP, and thus decrease risk and increase transparency and experience value through co-creation. This research shows that the brand personality of this nature-based tourist destination can be summed up by the four dimensions: ruggedness, sophistication, naturalness and activeness. A next step in the research could be a confirmatory factor analysis of the scale using structural equation modeling. This could be followed up by research that includes tourist destination brand personality in more theory-driven models. This research used a homogeneous sample of Norwegian tourists. The measurement instrument of tourist destination brand personality should also be tested on more heterogeneous samples of tourists from many nationalities. It will be interesting to find out whether the cultural backgrounds of tourists influence how they perceive the brand personality of a tourist destination. More research should be done to develop a measurement instrument for brand personality for other types of tourism destinations, for winter tourism and perhaps also a measurement instrument that can work for all types of tourist destinations. Future research on TDBP should also try to connect the research on TDBP more closely with other research topics in marketing and branding of tourist destinations, because every brand element can be a part of an overall brand and marketing strategy. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Funding This research was funded in part by the Norwegian Research Council. References Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review, 38(3),

13 60 P. I. Seljeseth & T. Korneliussen Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, doi: / Anderson, P. M., & Rubin, L. G. (1986). Marketing communications: Advertising, sales, promotion, public relations, display, and personal selling. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bitner, M. J., Faranda, W. T., Hubbert, A. R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1997). Customer contributions and roles in service delivery. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(3), doi: / Blythe, J. (2007). Advertising creatives and brand personality: A grounded theory perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 14(4), doi: /palgrave.bm Brassington, F., & Pettitt, S. (2000). Principles of marketing (2nd ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall. Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1981). Designing research for application. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), doi: / Crockett, S. R., & Wood, L. J. (2002). Brand Western Australia: Holidays of an entirely different nature. In N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding: Creating the unique destination proposition (pp ). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination personality: An application of brand personality to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), doi: / Gerbing, D. W., & Hamilton, J. G. (1996). Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3(1), doi: / Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y., & Uysal, M. (2006). Destination image and destination personality: An application of branding theories to tourism places. Journal of Business Research, 59(5), doi: /j. jbusres Kim, S., & Lehto, Y. (2013). Projected and perceived destination brand personalities: The case of South Korea. Journal of Travel Research, 52(1), doi: / Kristensson, P., Matthing, J., & Johansson, N. (2008). Key strategies for the successful involvement of customers in the co-creation of new technology-based services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19(4), doi: / Lovelock, C. H., & Young, R. F. (1979). Look to consumers to increase productivity. Harvard Business Review, 57(3), Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O Brien, M. (2007). Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant logic. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), doi: /j.jretai Michel, S., Brown, S. W., & Gallan, A. S. (2008). An expanded and strategic view of discontinuous innovations: Deploying a service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), doi: /s Mills, P. K. (1986). Managing service industries: Organizational practices in a postindustrial economy. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Pub Co. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2002). New Zealand, 100% pure: The creation of a powerful niche destination brand. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4/5), doi: /palgrave.bm Murphy, L., Benchendorff, P., & Moscardo, G. (2007). Linking travel motivation, tourist self-image and destination brand personality. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 22(2), doi: / J073v22n02_04 Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (2007). Using brand personality to differentiate regional tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), doi: / Okazaki, S. (2006). Excitement or sophistication? A preliminary exploration of online brand personality. International Marketing Review, 23(3), doi: / Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising Research, 24(6), Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2003). The new frontier of experience innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(4), Retrieved from

14 Experience-based Brand Personality as a Source of Value Co-creation 61 Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experience: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), doi: /dir Prebensen, N. K., Vittersø, J., & Dahl, T. I. (2013). Value co-creation significance of tourist resources. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, doi: /j.annals Rajagopal, R. (2006). Leisure shopping behavior and recreational retailing: A symbiotic analysis of marketplace strategy and consumer response. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 15(2), doi: /j150v15n02_02 Usakli, A., & Baloglu, S. (2011). Brand personality of tourist destinations: An application of self-congruity theory. Tourism Management, 32(1), doi: /j.tourman Vargo, S. L., & Luch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), doi: /jmkg Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2009). Interactions between visual appeals, holiday motivations, destination personality and the self-image: Implications for destination advertising. Journal of Travel and Tourism Research, 9(2), &AN= &h=Gan6qfctCxjekC1LLEtCQeBTriz7F3Tmkf1pUIiaRBuve1Oek%2bNDt%2fyS iydt%2fucdciihb5eq%2fl4ix5kjhdkana%3d%3d&crl=c&resultlocal=errcrlnoresults&resultns =Ehost&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype %3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d %26AN%3d