Increasing Destination Competitiveness:

Transcription

1 Received 09 June 2010 Accepted 29 August 2010 Increasing Destination Competitiveness: Destination Brands and Their benefits For Destination Team Members Jonathon Day, Liping Cai and Laurie Murphy Purdue Tourism and Hospitality Research Center and James Cook University Indiana 47906, USA and Australia The purpose of the present study was to examine the impact of destination image and Destination Marketing Organizations (DMO s) branding activities on the marketing activities of two stakeholder groups, products in the destination and tour wholesalers marketing the destination. The study considered the destination image of Australia in the United States and examined the perceived value of the Australian Tourist Commission s destination branding in the United States. The study examined tour wholesalers selling Australian travel products and Australian tourism products including hotels, attractions, tour operators and others, promoting their products to markets in the United States. The study found that both tour operators and wholesalers leverage the destination image of Australia to promote their products. Results suggest that destination branding frees marketing resources that allow tour operators and wholesalers to focus on sales conversion activities. The researchers conclude that destination branding creates equity beyond the firm-consumer construct of traditional brand equity. Keywords: Destination branding, Destination marketing, Destination image, DMO, tourism product. INTRODUCTION *Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Abraham Pizam. Electronic mail may be sent via internet to apizam@mail.ucf.edu Copyright 2010 Rex Publishing Co. Destination image and destination branding are topics that have received considerable attention in recent years by both academics and practitioners. Studies in destination image and branding regularly cite the competitive advantage generated by a favorable destination image or a strong destination brand, but few studies have examined how that competitive advantage leads to increased visitation. The present exploratory study examines the impact of destination image and National Tourist Office (NTO) branding activities on marketing activities of two stakeholder groups working to encourage Americans to visit their long-haul destination, Australia. Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research 4(2) 1

2 INCREASING DESTINATION COMPETITIVENESS LITERATURE REVIEW Destination branding is a topic that has received considerable attention in recent years from both academics and practitioners. The topic has been addressed in over 40 academic articles and featured in special editions of the Journal of Vacation Marketing (1999) and the Journal of Brand Management. In addition, several books have been published including two editions Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition (Morgan, Pritchard, & Pride, 2002, 2004), Destination Branding for Small Cities (Baker, 2007), and Tourism Branding: Communities In Action (Cai, Gartner, & Munar, 2009). Destination branding was the focus of the Destination Marketing Association International (DMAI) initiative resulting in the publication of Destination Brandscience (Knapp & Sherwin, 2005). In addition, several conferences have focused on destination branding including the 1998 Travel and Tourism Research Association conference and three bi-annual conferences hosted by Instituto de Formacao Turistica (IFT) and Purdue University. Throughout these reviews there is a general consensus that destinations can be branded and there have been several explorations of how successful destinations have accrued benefits from the branding process. Despite such attention, destination branding has been overshadowed somewhat by studies of destination image. In addressing the development of destination brand, one needs to differentiate destination branding from the related field of destination image. As Cai (2002) notes, image formation is not branding, albeit the former constitutes the core of the latter. Several authors (Echtner & Ritchie, 1991; Gallarza, Saura, & Garcia, 2002; Gartner, 1993) have noted that definitions of destination image are often vague and incomplete. A number of authors have adapted general definitions of image from marketing literature in describing destination or place image. Kotler et al. (1993), for instance, describe that image is the sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions that people have of a place. As such, destination image includes perceptions of the destination deliberately created through marketing activity as well as other perceptions and images formed through exposure to other image formation factors. While destination image is the result of multiple factors, many of which are beyond the direct control of the destination marketer, destination branding is the deliberate creation of consumer associations about the destination based on a predetermined plan. Destination marketers, in determining how to best position the destination brand, use elements of Gartner s image formation model in their positioning activity. The basic model of brand development integrates with one s understanding of destination image and destination branding. Aaker (1996) identifies three aspects of the branding process; the first factor begins with an understanding of the current image of product/service in the mind of the target consumer. This understanding of the current image is particularly important in destination branding because changing consumer perception is particularly challenging given the uncontrollable image formation activities. A second factor is the establishment of a set of associations, described as the brand identity, that the brand strategists want the product/service to be known for in the mind of the consumer over the long term. In the case of destination branding, the establishment of this brand identity can be a complex process involving a variety of stakeholders. This process, tied closely to the strategic planning for the destination, Cai (2002) describes as the critical missing link. To advance destination image studies to the level of branding, this link needs to be established. The third factor in this framework, destination positioning, is the identification of those aspects of the brand identity and value proposition that will be actively communicated to the target audience in the short term to meet the long term brand identity objectives. Destination positioning September

3 JONATHON DAY, LIPING CAI AND LAURIE MURPHY can be described in terms of the marketing activities, including brand advertising campaigns, undertaken by actors at the destination that contribute to the achievement of destination identity goals and reinforce aspects of the consumer brand image consistent with the strategic intent of the brand identity. The complex nature of destinations, in which many organizations simultaneously collaborate and compete to attract the visitor and deliver the tourist experience, provides significant challenges to both the creation of the brand identity and the positioning of the destination. Tourism System and Destination System In discussing destination branding, one must recall the nature of destinations. One important aspect of the nature of destinations is that they may be considered as both single holistic entities and composite entities. Buhalis (2000) described destinations as amalgams of tourism products, offering an integrated experience to consumers, while Hu and Ritchie (1993) define tourism destination as a package of tourism facilities and services, which, like any other consumer product or service, is composed of multidimensional attributes that determine its attractiveness to a particular individual in a given choice situation. The composite nature of the destination leads to some complex brand relationships. For instance, destinations can act as corporate or master brands for component products and services and channel members and they can be endorser brands for those entities. Aaker (2004) notes an endorser brand serves to give credibility and substance to the offering as products within destinations receive the benefits of the endorsement of the destination brand. On the other hand, in some cases the product acts as a branded ingredient to the destination. According to Aaker (2004), a branded ingredient is built into an offering and implies a benefit and/or feeling of confidence and, as such, the presence of a Hilton in a newly emerging city supports the brand development of the city with certain target markets. Interestingly, to date there has been relatively little examination of the brand architecture of destinations and its impact on consumer behavior. The destination brand also has a relationship with channel member brands. While some wholesalers and travel agents have established their own brand equity, there is evidence that wholesalers trade on the brand equity of the destinations they sell. These wholesalers also use the destination brand as an endorser. Indeed, on cursory examination these destination brands have a driver role which Aaker (2004) describes as the degree to which the brand drives the purchase decision and defines the experience. It is also important to note that tourism products contribute to consumer s perceptions of destinations. For instance, the theaters of Broadway are an important association for the image of New York and the Louvre is strongly associated with the destination image of Paris. Dayanand (2009) recently examined the role of alliances of small to medium enterprises to impact destination brand of Portugal. Destination Branding and Value Creation The creation of strong brands generates benefits for a number of stakeholders, including the consumer and the company undertaking the branding activities. As well documented, brands create value for consumers. Keller (1993) defines customer based brand equity as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand. The benefits of effective branding from a consumer perspective, according to Keller (1998), include identification of source of product, risk reducer, search cost reducer, signal of quality. The concept of Customer Based Brand Equity has been applied to tourism destinations by Pike (Pike, 2007, 2010) who explored the concepts of brand salience, brand associations and brand resonance with potential consumers of a short-haul destination in Queensland, Australia. Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 4, Number 2 3

4 INCREASING DESTINATION COMPETITIVENESS In traditional models of brand equity, the branding process also generates benefits for the company undertaking the branding activity. Keller (1998) identifies brand equity benefits as greater loyalty, less vulnerability to competitors marketing actions, less vulnerability to marketing crises, larger margins, more inelastic consumer responses to price increases and competitor price decreases, greater trade support, increased marketing communications effectiveness, possible brand extension opportunities, and possible licensing opportunities. Aaker (1991) identifies the benefits to the corporation of brand equity as increased efficiency and effectiveness of marketing expenditures, brand loyalty, the ability to maintain higher prices and/or margins, trade (distribution network) leverage, the ability to add brand extensions, and competitive advantage. He describes the assets of brand equity as brand loyalty, name awareness, perceived quality, other brand associations, and other proprietary brand assets such as trademarks. An examination of destination branding literature reveals that most authors have identified the benefits of destination branding in terms of either the destination as a whole or the destination marketing organization. The most frequently recurring theme identified as the benefits of branding is greater competitive advantage. No examples in the literature attempts to quantify the value of the destination brand. Table 1 provides an overview of benefits identified by researchers and practitioners in destination branding. As noted, destinations are composite systems and destination branding accrues benefits beyond the traditional modes of consumer and corporation. Other beneficiaries of the branding process include products and services that are components for the tourism destination, residents, and distribution channel members (to name a few). The present exploratory study Table 1: Benefits of Destination Branding Benefit of Destination Branding Differentiate destinations Reduce substitutability Coordination of investment Reference Morgan and Pritchard (2002) Gilmore (2002a) Increased marketing effectiveness Marketing best practice Increased local pride Ryan (2002) Predispose consumers to purchase Crockett & Wood (2002) Perceptions of quality Slater (2002) Brand loyalty Preventative injection against negative publicity Differentiate products Gilmore (2002b) Morgan, Pritchard, & Piggott (2003) Represent a promise of value Incite beliefs, evoke emotions, and prompt behavior Brand loyalty and customer retention Life-cycle extension Parkinson, Martin & Parkinson (1994) Increased foreign exchange expenditure September

5 JONATHON DAY, LIPING CAI AND LAURIE MURPHY recognizes the complex relationships between destinations, their component products and other members of the tourism system. That research addresses the following questions: What is the level of importance stakeholders place on identification with Australia? What is the disposition of stakeholders to engage in activities designed to build Australia s brand in the marketplace? What is the relationship between tourism system members relationship and the Australian Tourism Commission s (ATC s) brand activity METHODOLOGY An online survey was developed for two key stakeholder groups, wholesalers of Australian travel products and Australian tourism product managers who actively market their products themselves in the United States. These groups were chosen because they are directly involved in marketing of Australian tourism products in the United States. They also have the most vested interests in the destination branding process as both groups spend relatively large amounts of their budgets on marketing for the primary purpose of converting consumer interest in Australia to sales for Australia. The first group, called travel wholesalers or wholesalers, included travel companies operating in a source market that aggregate travel product and sells it to consumers either directly or through travel agents. A list of qualified wholesalers was developed through consultation with the Australian Tourist Commission and North American-based Australian State Tourist Offices. The list was compiled based on participation at major Australian travel tradeshows, on evidence of Australian travel product in catalogues, and on other marketing and sales activity. Individuals within these travel wholesalers were chosen on the basis of responsibility for the marketing of the Australian product sales. Depending on the size and scope of the wholesaler, these individuals hold titles including President, Vice President of Marketing, Marketing Manager or South Pacific manager, or other similar positions. A similar process was undertaken to identify the second group - Australian tourist product (i.e. hotels, attractions, tour operators) that was actively marketing directly to consumers and the travel trade in the United States. Individuals at these companies were identified who had responsibility for American sales and marketing. Depending on the size and scope of their organizations, individuals in the target group have titles that include Owner, General Manager/CEO, Director of Sales, Business Development Manager, International Sales Manager, or other similar positions. Two online questionnaires were developed, one for the product and one for the wholesalers. The majority of questions for each instrument was the same to allow for comparative analysis between the two groups. Questionnaires were placed on specially developed websites; respondents completed the questionnaire online and response data was collected on the website and transferred to Excel files for analysis in SPSS. There were 24 wholesale company respondents and 76 Australian-based companies representing local tour operators, hotels, attractions, and products. The overall response rate to these questionnaires was 35%. The present research is an exploratory study of the relationship between the stakeholders, the destination image, and the destination branding activities undertaken by the Australian Tourism Commission. Results discussed in the present research are primarily descriptive in nature. The study compares the means of the two stakeholder groups and t-tests were undertaken to ascertain the significance of differences in the means. Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 4, Number 2 5

6 INCREASING DESTINATION COMPETITIVENESS FINDINGS Stakeholders Association with Australia s Destination Image The stakeholders participating in the current study actively promote the destination and rate the promotion of the destination as their highest marketing priority with a mean rating of 6.11 on a 7-point Likert scale with 7 being very important. This rating is significantly above promoting their own company (5.94) or features of their products (5.86). The present research indicates that stakeholders find association with Australia very important in a number of ways. As shown in Table 2, when marketing their Australian product in the United States, these organizations (both product and wholesalers) consider identification with Australia very important, with the median recording the highest level of importance on a 7-point scale and a mean of 6.32 on a 7-point Likert scale. Using the same scale in which 1 was strongly disagree, 4 was neutral and 7 was strongly agree, respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with the statement It is important to emphasize the Australian-ness of my product to consumers in the United States. The mean response was 5.8, indicating a strong level of agreement with the statement. Of those who responded, 81% agreed that emphasizing Australian-ness was important. A t-test of the two means showed no significant difference in the means of the two types of respondents. Similarly, respondents were asked to rank their level of agreement with the following statement: Being associated with Australia assists my marketing efforts in the United States. On a 7- point Likert scale, in which 1 was strongly disagree, 4 was neutral and 7 was strongly agree, the combined group s mean response was Again, the Australian-based product responded with a significantly stronger level of agreement (t= , p=.007) to the statement (mean 6.37) compared to the American-based wholesalers (mean 5.43). Interestly, one notes the stronger value that Australian-based products places on being associated with Australia. One possible reason for this difference is that the products proximity, both literally and figuratively, may lead them to overvalue their destination brand s equity in the minds of international consumers. Table 2: Marketing Impacts of Association with Australia and Brand Australia Combined Product Wholesalers Significance Being associated with Australia assists my marketing efforts Importance of identifying your product with Australia or aspects of Australia The importance of emphasizing Australianness of my product. How important is Brand Australia advertising to your business in the United States Success of my sales and marketing in the United States is closely tied to the success of Brand Australia t=-2.931, p = t = p = t= p= t= p =.002 t= p =.463 Scale:1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree) Sample size combined (n-combined) = 100 Sample size product (n-product) = 76 Sample size wholesalers (n- wholesalers) = 24 September

7 JONATHON DAY, LIPING CAI AND LAURIE MURPHY Importance of Brand Australia Positioning Activities to Stakeholders A number of items were used to provide insight into the value products and wholesalers place on Brand Australia positioning activities (Table 2). When asked their level of agreement to Success of my sales and marketing in the United States is closely tied to the success of the promotion of Australia as a vacation destination, both groups reported a positive response with an average response of 4.9 on a 7-point scale. There was no significant difference between Australian operators and American-based wholesalers. Nevertheless, the wholesalers are less likely to value the ATC s Brand Australia activity. When asked How important is ATC Brand Australia advertising to your business from North America, with 1 as not important and 7 as very important, wholesalers provided only a 3.5 average (mean) score whereas the Australian product s mean response was (t value = 3.456, p =.002). The ATC provides information to operators about its branding work, as well brand consistent images for product and wholesaler use. A series of questions were asked to determine levels of familiarity with Brand Australia (Table 3). Respondents were asked to provide their level of agreement with several statements using a 7-point Likert scale in which 1 represented strongly disagree, 4 was neutral, and 7 was strongly agree. Respondents agreed (mean 5.89) that they were aware that the Australian Tourist Commission had developed a branding strategy for Australian tourism. Respondents also agreed that they were aware of the key design components of Brand Australia and its goals (5.46) and the key copy points of Brand Australia (5.43). Awareness of these specific aspects of the brand were reported with lower levels than awareness of the general strategy. Sixty three percent of respondents reported having read the Brand Australia pages on the ATC s Australia.com in the last 12 months. This online resource is one of the chief sources of information about Brand Australia for the travel industry. Respondents were least likely to agree that they were aware of the effectiveness of brand activity in the American market. This statement had the lowest mean responses in this series of questions. There was no significant difference in the responses to these items between the Australian operators and the wholesalers. Table 3 Stakeholders understanding of Brand Australia I am aware that the Australian Tourist Commission has developed a branding strategy for 5.99 Australian tourism. I am aware of the key design components of Brand Australia 5.46 I am aware of the goals of Brand Australia I am aware of the key copy points of Brand Australia I am aware of the effectiveness of brand activity in the US market Scale: 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree) Sample size combined (n-combined) = 100 Sample size product (n-product) = 76 Sample size wholesalers (n- wholesalers) = 24 Combined Response * Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 4, Number 2 7

8 INCREASING DESTINATION COMPETITIVENESS Table 4: Importance of Brand Australia to Marketing Activity Combined Product Wholesalers Significance Ability to focus on product sales knowing "destination message" has been covered Increased business as an indirect result of campaigns 61% Easier introduction of product to the US market because of Brand Australia marketing 67% 75% 41.7 Chi sq = p = % 64.5% Chi sq = p = % Chi sq =.680 p =.410 Increased business as a direct result of participation in ATC sponsored campaigns. Brand Australia marketing makes it easier to convert "sales" to Australia Brand Australia allows Australian tourism product to charge a "price" premium. 44% Chi sq =.541 p = % Chi sq =.030 p = % Chi sq = p =.275 Scale: 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)) Sample size combined (n-combined) = 100 Sample size product (n-product) = 76 Sample size wholesalers (n- wholesalers) = 24 Only 21% of respondents reported using Brand Australia elements, such as images, suggested copy or other items provided by the ATC, in developing their promotional materials, brochures or catalogs. In this respect, the American-based wholesalers were far more likely to have used the resources than were Australianbased products. Over 45% of wholesalers reported using these Brand Australia elements compared to 13% of the tourist products (chi sq =11.739, p=.001). There was general consensus between the Australian travel product and the wholesalers regarding the benefits they received from the ATC s Brand Australia activities. The benefits of destination branding identified by both wholesalers and Australian-based product were that 61% of respondents expected sales as an indirect result of the brand advertising and 44% expected sales as a direct result of the brand activity. Less than half (49%) expected easier introduction of their product to the American market because of the Brand Australia marketing. Almost 4 in 10 (39%) believed that Brand Australia marketing made it easier to convert sales to Australia. Just 10% of Australian products believed that Brand Australia allowed Australian tourism products to charge a price premium. Other benefits for Australian tourism marketers in order of frequency were increased destination awareness (4 cases), creation of desire for the destination (2 cases), and providing a foundation for conversion (2 cases). Destination branding activity added legitimacy and validity to product marketing efforts, generated demand in the distribution channels, and created marketing synergies. The one benefit for which product and wholesalers differed in their expectations came when they were asked what benefits they expected to receive from the Brand Australia activity was their expectations of how Brand Australia influences the priorities of their communication. Australian products (75%) perceived a significantly greater (Chi sq =9.166; p =.002) likelihood to be able to focus their effort on product sales knowing destination image had been covered as compared to their wholesaler (42%) counterparts. September

9 JONATHON DAY, LIPING CAI AND LAURIE MURPHY Table 5: Impact of Brand Australia on marketing expenditures Wholesalers Product Response Option Response (percent) Response (percent) Do you spend more or less in the United States because ATC has a branding campaign in the United States? more Not a factor Less Chi sq = 1.755, p=.416 Sample size combined (n-combined) = 100 Sample size product (n-product) = 76 Sample size wholesalers (n- wholesalers) = 24 Table 6: Types of Messages Australian Tourism Marketers Type of Message Now No Brand Australia T value Significance Company /corporate messages 29% 27% Individual product features 36% 30% Destination messages 30% 37% Impact of Brand Australia to Stakeholders Marketing There has been some suggestion that destination branding by DMOs may reduce the need for marketing by small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) such as the tourism product or the wholesalers. In the present study, that assumption proved invalid. When asked whether Australian tourism marketers would spend more or less in United States because ATC has a branding campaign in America, the overwhelming majority said not a factor. Only 8% of respondents spend more on marketing because the ATC runs a brand campaign in the United States. Results indicate that there is no significant difference between wholesalers and product as to whether they would spend more or less in the United States because the ATC has a brand campaign. If destination brand has little impact on the overall expenditure of stakeholder organizations, then what impact does it have? In order to further examine the notion that branding activity undertaken by National Tourist Organizations (NTOs) does not increase or decrease marketing expenditure by the private sector but shifts the emphasis of different messages, two questions regarding the relative importance of different types of messages were asked. One question assumed brand activity and the other assumed no brand activity. The result confirms anecdotal Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 4, Number 2 9

10 INCREASING DESTINATION COMPETITIVENESS feedback from NTO managers that destination branding frees product to focus on product messages. As noted in Table 6, in the absence of Brand Australia marketing, Australian Tourism marketers anticipate spending an average of 7% more of their available resources to promote the destination. The consequence of removing Australian branding would be that marketing efforts dedicated to specific product features and corporate messages would need to be reduced to allow space for these destination messages. OBSERVATION AND DISCUSSION With the exploratory examination of the relationship of two key stakeholder groups to Australia s destination image and the branding activity of Australia s National Tourism Office, the Australian Tourist Commission provided new insights into the complex relationships within the tourism system and its impact on the destination branding process. The study confirmed that stakeholders place importance on identification with the destination in their marketing efforts. Results show that stakeholders perceive the destination image of Australia to be critical to their success. Using Aaker s (2004) terminology, stakeholders used the destination image as a driver brand designed to stimulate sales. The level of importance to the success of their business product managers attribute to the destination brand provides valuable insight into discussions of politics in destination branding. The stakeholders were not only interested bystanders in the branding process but participants in an activity they viewed as critical to their livelihood. Another notable result revealed by the study was that although wholesalers considered Brand Australia advertising significantly less important to their overall success than the product, they were far more likely to use brand elements in their marketing. Paradoxically, the travel product was more likely to support notions of unified messaging for Australia in the market and consider Brand Australia important to their success in the market are significantly less likely to use the materials supplied by the ATC. One possible reason may be that the Australian-based products, located in the destination, have greater access to marketing materials other than those available through the DMO. As a consequence, Australian-based products are less likely to be brand consistent with the ATC when they do not use the resources provided by the brand strategists. Such results show that DMOs must carefully interpret feedback from stakeholders as their cognitive responses and the behavioral responses may be inconsistent. Examination of the impact of destination branding on the allocation of marketing resources and the prioritization of marketing communications provided insight into the perceived value of the DMO branding activity. The presence of destination branding by the DMO allowed stakeholders to focus greater proportions of their marketing resources on specific product sales-related messages. One argues that destination branding increases the efficiency of stakeholders marketing in that it frees stakeholders to undertake tactical messaging designed to secure the sale. If the DMOs primary goal is to secure passengers for the destination, then destination brand strategies must focus more attention on stakeholder roles to lead to greater marketing efficiency. The present study provides important insights into the role of destination image and destination branding for managers of DMOs. First, destination image is an important asset for stakeholders in the tourism system and there is value in enhancing the image through brandrelated marketing. Second, the perceived value of destination branding is different for various stakeholder groups. Indeed, while stakeholders may be aware of branding activities, and may even utilize brand elements, they do not necessarily know the effectiveness of brand September

11 JONATHON DAY, LIPING CAI AND LAURIE MURPHY campaigns. DMOs must recognize that their brand campaigns can be used by stakeholders in a variety of ways and ensure that communication with the system addressed the needs of each stakeholder group. Third, from the stakeholder s perspective, DMO branding both supports marketing efforts and frees resources that can be directed to sales conversion activities. DMOs should recognize these roles in developing marketing materials. DMOs should not expect brand activities to stimulate greater spending by stakeholders. The current study indicates that stakeholders have a relatively finite budget and the branding efforts of DMOs allow resources to be reallocated. While much discussion has occurred regarding the role of DMOs in destination branding, one must remember that the tourism goals of destinations are achieved primarily the firms that constitute the tourism system and not by the DMOs themselves. As strategist Michael Porter (Porter, 1990) points out, Firms, not nations, compete in international markets p 33. Destination image and destination branding are important assets that tourism companies use to achieve their business objectives. Finally the present study shows that destination brand image creates value beyond the traditional constructs of consumer-based brand equity proposed by Keller (1993) or the consumer/firm model proposed by Aaker(1991). A more thorough appreciation of the value of destination brand equity requires understanding of value created throughout the destination s tourism system. The study has identified value that is created for both tourism product and members of the tourism distribution network. Using a modified version of the Mills and Morrison Tourism System (2002) and the Aaker Brand Equity Model (Aaker, 1991), Figure 1 depicts the benefits generated by destination brand equity on the tourism system. The current study, combined with extant research, indicates the benefits of destination branding are distributed in different ways and to different degrees to stakeholders across the system. Figure 1: Destination Brand Equity Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 4, Number 2 11

12 INCREASING DESTINATION COMPETITIVENESS LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH The present study was developed as an exploratory study and provides some important insights about the role destination image and destination branding activities play in the destination marketing by key stakeholders. The study is limited in that it only addresses a single destination, Australia, and a limited set of stakeholders working in a single marketplace the United States. The Australian Tourism Commission has been extremely proactive in destination branding and, so therefore, Australian tourism stakeholders may be more familiar with the issues addressed in the present study than similar groups from other destinations. Another limitation is the respondent group may be biased. Destination image remains a rich topic for future study. For instance, future research should address the role of destination image in the consumer buying process and the relative importance of destination image creation factors in creating destination image. As image formation agents change and new technologies, such as social media, change the way one receives information about destinations, one s understanding of the image formation process must accommodate these new factors. The management process of creating destination brands also requires greater examination. Extant research has addressed destination branding almost exclusively from the perspective of the DMO. Future studies should examine in greater detail the value of these activities to the stakeholders at the destination and in the tourism system. Finally, there is a need to greater understand the relationships within the destination system and the tourism system as a whole. Such research would provide greater insight into the value that is created by activities undertaken by the DMO for the destination. REFERENCES Aaker, D. (1991). Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name. New York: Free Press. Aaker, D. (1996). Measuring Brand Equity across Products and Markets. California Management Review, 38(3), Aaker, D. (2004). Brand Portfolio Strategy: Creating Relevance, Differentiation, Energy, Leverage and Clarity. New York: Free Press. Baker, B. (2007). Destination Branding for Small Cities: The essentials for successful place branding. (1 ed.). Portland, Oregon Creative Leap Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21, Cai, L. (2002). Cooperative Branding for Rural Destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), Cai, L., Gartner, W., & Munar, A. (Eds.). (2009). Tourism Branding: Communities in Action (Vol. 1): Emerald. Crockett, S., & Wood, L. (2002). Brand Western Australia: "Holidays of an entirely different nature.". In N. Morgan, A. Pritchard & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Position (1st ed., pp ). Great Britain: Butterworth-Heinemann. Dayanand, M. (2009). Networking for Destination Brand Image: A case study in Portugal. Journal of Tourism X(1), Echtner, C., & Ritchie, J. (1991). The Meaning and Measurement of Destination Image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), Gallarza, M., Saura, I., & Garcia, H. (2002). Destination Image: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), Gartner, W. C. (1993). Image Formation Process. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2 (2/3), September

13 JONATHON DAY, LIPING CAI AND LAURIE MURPHY Gilmore, F. (2002a). Branding for Success. In N. Morgan, A. Pritchard & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination Branding: Creating the unique destination proposition. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Gilmore, F. (2002b). A country - can it be repositioned? Spain- the success story of country branding. Journal of Brand Management, 9, Hu, Y., & Ritchie, J. (1993). Measuring Destination Attractiveness: A Contextual Approach. Journal of Travel Research, Fall, Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), Keller, K. (1998). Strategic Brand Management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Knapp, D., & Sherwin, G. (2005). Destination BrandScience. Washington DC: IACVB. Kotler, P., Haider, D., & Rein, I. (1993). Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry and Tourism to Cities, States and Nations. New York: Free Press. Mill, R., & Morrison, A. (2002). The Tourism System. USA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Morgan, N., & Pritchard, A. (2002). Introduction. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2003). Destination branding and the role of the stakeholders: The case of New Zealand. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3), Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Pride, R. (2002). Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition. (1 ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Pride, R. (Eds.). (2004). Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition (2 ed.). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth- Heinemann. Parkinson, S., Martin, M., & Parkinson, L. (1994). Espana: An international tourist brand. Irish Marketing Review, 7, Pike, S. (2007). Consumer-Based Brand Equity for Destinations: Practical DM0 Performance Measures. [Article]. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 22(1), Pike, S. (2010). Destination Branding Case Study: Tracking Brand Equity for an Emerging Destination between 2003 and Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 34(1), Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press. Ryan, C. (2002). The Politics of Branding Cities and Regions: the case of New Zealand. In N. Morgan, A. Pritchard & P. R (Eds.), Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Slater, J. (2002). Brand Louisiana: Come as you are. Leave Different. In N. Morgan, A. Pritchard & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination Branding: Creating the unique destination proposition. (First ed., pp ). Oxford: Butterworth - Heinemann. Asian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research Volume 4, Number 2 13