A MODEL OF DESTINATION BRANDING FOR IRANIAN … · 2.2. Destination branding Destination branding...

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X

International Journal of Research In Social Sciences © 2013-2014 IJRSS & K.A.J. All rights reserved www.ijsk.org/ijrss

29

A MODEL OF DESTINATION BRANDING FOR IRANIAN HISTORICAL

CITIES

Kambiz Heidarzadeh Hanzaee, Hamid Saeedi

Department of Business Management, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University,

Tehran, Iran

Hamid Saeedi ([email protected])

ABSTRACT

The current study aims to develop and test a theoretical model of destination branding, which integrates the

concepts of the branding , destination image, quality and loyalty. The study suggests historical image as a new

component of historical destination brand associations. Specifically, the current study examines the relationships

among brand associations for historical cities (i.e., historical, common, and unique image components), overall

brand image (i.e., overall image of a destination), perceived quality and tourists’ future behaviour. The target

population of this study was 750 domestic visitors, who stayed in shiraz, Isfahan, and Kermanshah (historical cities

in Iran). The results confirm that overall image is influenced by common image and is considered a critical

mediator between brand associations, Perceived quality and tourists’ future behaviour. In addition, historical image

had the first largest impact on the common image formation.

Keywords: historical Destination branding, Destination image, Brand image, Overall brand image, perceived

quality and loyalty

1. INTRODCUTION

In western asia, Iran is home to the most inscribed

sites in UNESCO1 with 16 sites. Armenian Monastic

Ensembles of Iran, Bam and its Cultural Landscape,

Bisotun, Golestan Palace, Gonbad-e Qābus, Masjed-e

Jāmé of Isfahan, Meidan Emam, Esfahan,

Pasargadae, Persepolis, Sheikh Safi al-din Khānegāh

and Shrine Ensemble in Ardabil, Shushtar Historical

Hydraulic System, Soltaniyeh,Tabriz Historic Bazaar

Complex, Takht-e Soleyman, chogha Zanbil, The

Persian Garden. The first sites to be recognized by

UNESCO from the west asia was Percepolis was a

city in ancient Persia. Every year, iran historical

cities accommodates a significant number of Iranian

1 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization

and foreign tourists. Iran has a favorable climate and

many historical places Because of all these

attractions, we selected Shiraz, Isfahan and

Kermanshah (historical cities in iran) as our subject

of study. During the last two decades, both academia

and marketing practitioners have shown an increasing

interest in brand management. Branding is now

widely acknowledged asa potent tool for companies

to use to their advantage in achieving competitive

strengthen the market, as it generates value both for

the producer and consumers (Keller, 2008). the term

“destination branding” is recognised as that most

commonly used in tourism literature to describe the

method of creating a unique identity for a destination

that enables potential visitors to differentiate one

destination from another (Graves and Skinner, 2009).

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


30

The core of destination branding is to build a positive

destination image that identifies and differentiates the

destination by selecting a consistent brand element

mix (Cai, 2002). Although not explicitly examined in

the context of branding, destination image should be

regarded as a pre-existing concept corresponding to

destination branding (Pike, 2009). The destination

branding literature, however, focuses primarily on

leisure and business tourism. There has been no

academic investigation into the branding of historical

places as centres. Destination images fall on a

continuum that begins with organic images which are

developed over a long period of time and represent

“the totality of what a person already knows or

perceives about that destination from newspapers,

radio and TV news, documentaries, periodicals,

dramas, novels, and non-fictional books and classes

on geography and history”(Gunn, 1997). A strong,

unique image is the essence of destination positioning

for its ability to differentiate a destination from

competitors to get into the consumers‟ minds, which

simplify information continuously (Botha, Crompton,

& Kim, 1999; Buhalis, 2000; Calantone, et al., 1989;

Chon, Weaver, & Kim, 1991; Crompton, Fakeye, &

Lue, 1992; Fan, 2006; Go & Govers, 2000; Mihalic,

2000; Mykletun, Crotts, & Mykletun, 2001; Uysal et

al., 2000).

The research first seeks to identify the key attribute

dimensions associated with destination historical

brand images and second, to assess the importance of

unique and common images attributes associated with

history. The focus of this paper is therefore not the

destination branding itself, but rather the destination

image concept, how that destination image is created,

communicated and controlled, and the relationship

between destination image and perceived quality and

loyalty. Each of these concepts will be explored

further in the paper.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. branding theory

According to Kotler (1997) a brand is “a name, term,

sign, symbol, or design or combination of them

which is intended to identify the goods and services

of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate

them from those of competitors.”Destinations are

similar to products and follow similar branding

processes. Consumers use brand names and product

attributes as retrieval cues for information about

product performance. Brand names and offering

attributes are the links to diagnostic information

about the product (Hutchinson & Alba, 1991). Keller

(1998) states that a physical good, a service, a retail

store, a person, an organization, a place and/or an

idea can be encompassed in the concept of product.

Branding has Viking origins. According to Keller

(2008) , the word „ brand ‟ is an Old Norse word

meaning „ to burn ‟ and refers to the practice of

marking animals by owners in order to identify them.

In the American Wild West, cowboys and ranchers

used a hot branding iron to singe, or “brand”. Today,

branding issued to imprint a representational image

of a product or service into the mind of the consumer.

There are various branding strategies applied to an

almost endless array of products and services.

Classical branding theory has been developed largely

in the context of consumer products (de Chernatony

and Segal- Horn, 2001). In this context, brands are

seen as complex entities (Gardner and Levy, 1955; de

Chernatony and Dall Olmo Riley, 1998).

For example, a place includes tangible attributes such

as historical sites or beaches as well as intangible

characteristics such as culture, customs, and history.

Because of the complex nature of a destination to be

a brand, generalization of the identity is inevitable.

Brand identity is critical for generalization of

desirable characteristics projected by supplier’s

perspective. It explains the expectations of a supplier

about how a brand should be perceived by its target

market. Defining a target market is crucial because

some aspects of a destination may seem positive to

one segment while ineffective to another (Fan, 2006).

2.2. Destination branding

Destination branding or the branding of places is a

field that has gained increasing attention over the last

decades. At least, a much cited article by Buhalis in

1999 stated that “the inadequacy of destination

marketing literature probably illustrates the interest

of researchers in the impacts of tourism on

destinations” (Buhalis, 2000). the concept of

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


31

destination is very broad. They argue that a

destination can be everything that people visit for a

one day trip, a shorter stay or a longer holiday. In

addition, destinations can be owned, at one end of the

scale, by a single company whereas destinations, at

the other end of that scale, are constituted by

countries or regions (Moilanen &Rainisto 2009).

Although the concept of branding has been applied

extensively to products and services, the notion of

branding has only recently started to expand into

tourist destinations and became apparent as a topic of

examination in the late 1990’s (Tasci & Kozak, 2006;

Pike, 2004; Wagner & Peters, 2009).

2.3. Destination image

The definition of destination image is rather

problematic (Jenkins, 1999), and often avoided

(Echtner & Ritchie, 2003), since no consensus on

how to define a destination’s image has been reached

(Gallarza et al., 2002; Grosspietsch, 2006). Thus,

many definitions are quite vague, and, in several

cases, are not even explicitly stated (Echtner &

Ritchie, 1993, 2003; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991;

Beerli & Martin, 2004; Pike & Ryan, 2004). the

concept image remains complex and ill-defined in its

nature, since it has been described as: representation,

object, impressions, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, feelings

or identity. The most common and widely accepted

definition of brand image is “the perceptions about a

brand reflected as associations existing in the

memory of the consumer” (Keller,1993).

2.4. Historical image

Goeldner et al. (2000) suggest that history may be

one of the most interesting dimensions of a tourist

destination, and is a rich instrument which allows

creating a unique tourist experience. Local historic

sites, stories, and legends – all create a romantic and

lasting experience for region’s visitors .History is

also what differentiates and unites nations, and is one

of the important motives to visit one or another

region. Historic travels become much more popular,

and there are successful examples of how to use

history to create a brand image of a region. Examples

of popular historical attractions are Mount Vernon in

the USA (plantation home of President George

Washington, Virginia), Bastille square and Louvre in

Paris in Sweden – Vasa Ship in central

Stockholm(Goeldner et al., 2000). Complex image

can be derived as a result of direct experience of the

destination (Fakeye and Crompton, 1991). Since

Gunn‟s seminal work on destination image, many

researchers have defined and conceptualized

destination image in the context of tourism. Hunt

(1975) defined destination image as perceptions that

potential visitor should about a destination. When

measuring the destination image of Mexico held by

US citizens, Crompton (1979) conceptualized

destination image as the sum of cognitive beliefs and

affective impressions that an individual possesses of

a particular destination. Similarly, Baloglu and

Bringerg (1997) and Beerli et al. (2002) summarized

that destination image is characterized by subjective

perceptions that consist of both high levels of

cognitive aspects (belief) and affective aspects

(feeling). Therefore, it is deduced that:

H1: Historical image will positively affect common

image of a destination.

2.5. Unique image

The significance of unique image on overall image

warrants a need for more attention on this construct

from destination branding scholars. Interestingly, its

effect was even larger than the affective image

component, which has received more consideration

than unique image in the destination image literature.

The results of Qu et al. , research also show that

uniqueness of a destination has the second largest

influence on overall image. The importance of unique

image also lies in its usefulness to positioning the

destination brand. Because unique image is an

excellent source for differentiation (Echtner

&Ritchie, 1993), it needs to be identified and

emphasized to improve overall image and increase

the points of difference among various alternatives.

Thus, little attention has focused on the construct in

the literature, unique image should be considered as a

critical brand association to expand our knowledge

of destination image to the next level of destination

branding( Qu et al., 2011). It is proposed that there is

an additional image component to be considered as a

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


32

brand association: unique image.Contrary to common

image, unique image is highlighted as a construct that

envisages the overall image of a destination (Echtner

& Ritchie, 1993). According to Echtner and Ritchie

(1993), the overall image of a destination should be

viewed and measured based on three dimensions of

attributes: holistic, functional psychological, and

unique-common characteristics. Uniqueness is

particularly important due to its influence on

differentiation among similar destinations in the

target consumers’ minds (Cai, 2002; Echtner &

Ritchie, 1993; Morrison & Anderson, 2002; Ritchie

& Ritchie, 1998). One of the purposes of branding is

to differentiate its product from those of competitors

(Aaker, 1991, p. 7). Hosting unique events can thus

lead to a differentiation of a destination‟s image and

products whichcan then emphasise and enhance the

uniqueness of a place (Buhalis 1999).Uniqueness

provides a compelling reason why travelers should

select a particular destination over alternatives.

Positive brand image is partly achieved through the

uniqueness of brand associations to the brand in

memory (Keller, 2008, p. 56). Thus, the unique

image of a destination is critical to establish the

overall image in the consumers’ minds. A strong,

unique image would increase the favorability of the

common image toward the destination. Therefore, it

is deduced that:

H2: Unique image will positively affect common

image of a destination.

2.6. Destination brand images

It is not surprising, therefore, that there is a

considerable literature on destination brand images

particularly in the area of leisure tourism marketing

(Walmsley and Young, 1998). Studies in this area

have focused upon the attributes forming destination

images. Several studies have sought to identify the

brand image attributes of specific tourism

destinations (Etchner and Ritchie ,1993). Others have

sought to identify common attributes across

destinations (Walmsley and Jenkins, 1993; Walmsley

and Young, 1998; Young, 1995). There has been

much debate on the relationship between brand and

image (Tasci & Kozak, 2006), however, one way in

which to classify brand image is, being a form of

consumer based brand equity (Pike, 2004). In this

sense, brand image can be defined as

being “The perception of a brand in the minds of

persons. The brand image is a mirror reflection

(though perhaps inaccurate) of the brand personality

or product being. It is what people believe about a

brandtheir thoughts, feelings, expectations”

(American Marketing Association, 2008). These

beliefs, or perceptions, are developed from the

associations or attributes that come to a consumer’s

mind when contemplating a particular brand (Shimp,

2007). Therefore, we propose a third hypothesis as

follows:

H3: Common image influence overall destination

brand image.

2.7. Perceived quality

Quality of service, from the perspective of Grönroos

(2000), is defined from two dimensions: the technical

quality (that which is delivered to the consumer) and

the functional quality of service (how it is delivered).

In contrast, Brady and Cronin (2001) state that the

perception on the quality of service is made up from

three dimensions: quality of results, quality of

interaction and quality of environment. Quality of

results is defined as that which the client obtains

when the productive process has finished, quality of

interaction is presented as the interaction which takes

place while service is being offered, and the quality

of environment as the background conditions where

the service is offered (or the product delivered).

Oliver (1997) states that every interpretation by the

consumer involves a relationship to a different kind

of expectation. Thus, we can define the variable

expectations as previous predictions or beliefs that

the consumer use to make about results or

performance of the product in the future (Olson and

Dover, 1979). According to Oliver (1997), the quality

of service is based on perceptions of excellence, so it

is logical to think that perceived quality is influenced

by the expectations of the consumer. Therefore, we

propose a fourth hypothesis as follows:

H4: overall destination brand image influence

perceived quality.

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


33

2.8. Tourist behaviours

Previous research findings indicated that destination

image had both direct and indirect effect on

behavioural intentions (Alcaniz et al., 2009; Baloglu

and McCleary,1999; Bigne et al., 2001; Castro et al.,

2007; Chen and Tsai, 2007; Chi and Qu, 2008; Lee,

2009). In these studies, behavioral intentions were

usually examined from two different perspectives,

using the terms “intention to (re)visit and willingness

to recommend to others”. Conducting a SEM,

Baloglu and McCleary (1999) found that three

cognitive destination image factors (quality of

experience, attractions, and value/entertainment)

were positively associated with word-of-mouth (i.e.

willingness to recommend to others). Bigne et al.

(2001) investigated interrelationships among

destination image, perceived quality, satisfaction,

intention to return, and willingness to recommend to

others in the context of resort visitors. They found

that destination image had a direct effect on intention

to return and willingness to recommend to others.

Meanwhile, destination image was also found to have

an indirect effect on intention to return and

willingness to recommend to others through quality

and satisfaction. Chen and Tsai (2007) supported

Bigne et al,. (2001) findings by indicating that

destination image had a direct effect on trip quality

and behavioural intentions. In addition, destination

image had an indirect effect on behavioural intentions

through trip quality, perceived value, and satisfaction.

Recently, Alcaniz et al. (2009) also found a direct

effect of cognitive destination image on tourism

behavioural intentions. More specifically, functional

image was only related to revisit intention and

psychological image was only related to intention to

recommend, and mixed image was associated with

neither of the two behavioural intentions. Applying a

theory of market heterogeneity in their study, Castro

et al. (2007) found that there was strong an indirect

relationship between a destination image and

intention to visit, in which the relationship was

moderated by service quality and tourist satisfaction.

Chi and Qu (2008) tested a theoretical model that

examined whether or not destination image had a

direct or indirect effect on behavioural loyalty using a

sample of a famous spring tourists. The findings

indicated that destination image was indirectly related

to behavioural loyalty through attribute satisfaction

and overall satisfaction. Word-of-mouth (WOM) is

defined as “informal, person-to-person

communication between a perceived non-commercial

communicator and a receiver regarding a brand, a

product, an organization, or a service” (Harrison-

Walker, 2001, p. 63). Therefore, we propose a fifth

hypothesis as follows:

H5: perceived quality influence loyalty

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


34

3.CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Figure I: Conceptual model

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1. Sampling

The target population of this study was domestic

visitors, who stopped at shiraz city ( pasargade and

persepolis), isfahan city (naghsh-e-jahan square and

jamee mosque), and Kermanshah (bisotun) all of

have been registered in UNESCO list of world

human heritage during an four-week period in August

and September 2013.

A confidence interval approach was used to

determine the sample size, suggested by Burns and

Bush (1995). With 50% of the estimated variability in

the population (Burns & Bush, 1995), the sample size

was set at 750 (n =750) at the 95% confidence level.

Every visitor who stopped at the five historical

attractions was approached to participate in the

survey. A random starting number for each day was

created. A set of questionnaires along with an

instruction letter was distributed to the five historical

attractions according to a proportionate subsample

size( 250) for each city.

4.2. Instrument

The survey questionnaire consisted of three major

sections. The first section included questions to

identify historical tourists. The second section was

developed to assess the respondent’s historical,

common, and uniqueness perceptions of overall

image toward Shiraz, Isfahan, and Kermanshah as a

travel destinations. To generate a complete list of the

respondent’s perceptions a method used by Qu etal.,

2011 was adapted. During the review of the literature

on destination branding and image measurement, all

the attributes used in the previous studies were

recorded and grouped by the researcher into a

“master list” of attributes. In addition, 20 expert in

marketing and tourism were held developing multi-

item scales capturing various aspects of Shiraz,

Isfahan, and Kermanshah image as a travel

Historical image

Common image

Unique image

Loyalty

Perceived quality

Overall

destination brand

image

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


35

destinations. The last step was to have a panel of

university expert judges, who are academics and

practitioners in the areas of tourism, marketing, and

management examine the complete list of attributes

to eliminate redundancies and to add any missing

attributes. Finally, 19 items relating to historical

image, 24 items relating to common image and 8

items to unique image were selected and respondents

were asked to rate Shiraz, Isfahan, and Kermanshah

as a travel destinations on each of 51 attributes on a

5-point Likert scale where 1 =Strongly Disagree

(SD); 2= Disagree (D); 3=Neutral (N);4 =Agree (A);

and 5 = Strongly Agree (SA).

Affective image of destination was measured by

using affective image scales developed by Russel et

al. (1981) and Qu et al. (2011). The scale included

four bipolar scales:Arousing-Sleepy,Pleasant-

npleasant, Exciting-Gloomy, and Relaxing-

Distressing. A 7-point semantic-differential scale was

used for all four bipolar scales where the positive

poles were assigned to smaller values: 1= arousing

and 7 = sleepy, 1 =pleasant and 7 =unpleasant, 1=

exciting and 7= gloomy, and 1 =relaxing and 7 =

distressing. In addition, the scale of overall image

measurement was modified from Stern and Krakover

(1993). The respondents were asked to rate their

perception of overall image of Shiraz, Isfahan, and

Kermanshah on a 7-point scale with 1 being very

negative and with 7 being very positive. The next

section was to identify the attributes that make

Shiraz, Isfahan, and Kermanshah unique from Tehran

as capital city of Iran. A total of 8 items were derived

from the image study various travel literature and

confirm of experts. Although some of the similar

measures were used for capturing common and

unique images of Shiraz, Isfahan, and Kermanshah,

they should be considered as different measures

because common image measures the perceptions of

the general quality of tourist experiences in Shiraz,

Isfahan, and Kermanshah as a travel destination

(without any comparison with other destinations).

while overall image has more focus on comparison of

measures between Shiraz, Isfahan, and Kermanshah

and Tehran.

12 questions were included to determine the

perceived quality of Shiraz, Isfahan, and Kermanshah

brands that determine quality of historical

destination brand in mind of tourists. Additional 6

questions were included to determine the

respondent’s loyalty to Shiraz, Isfahan, and

Kermanshah and the respondent’s intention to

recommend Shiraz, Isfahan, and Kermanshah as a

favorable destinations to others with a 5-point Likert-

type scale (1 = most unlikely; 5 =most likely). The

final section was devoted to collecting demographic

information about the respondents. The last section

included questions relating to the individual travel

behavior of respondents and the information source

used prior to planning a trip to Shiraz, Isfahan, and

Kermanshah. The travel behavior items included the

number of times they visited Shiraz, Isfahan, and

Kermanshah , purpose for the trip, length of stay, and

total trip spending.

A pilot test was performed to assess how well the

survey instrument captured the constructs it was

supposed to measure, and to test the internal

consistency and reliability of questionnaire items.

The first draft of the survey instrument was

distributed to 40 randomly selected visitors who

stopped at isfahan. A total of 40questionnaires were

collected at the site. The results of the reliability tests

for each dimension showed that Cronbach’s alpha

was 0.80 for historical items, 0.87 for common items,

0.87 for uniqueness, 0.88 for overall destination

brand, 0.84 for perceived quality and 0.86 for

loyalty. The scale reliability was tested for internal

consistency by assessing the item-to-total correlation

for each separate itemand Cronbach’s alpha for the

consistency of the entire scale. Rules of thumb

suggest that the item-to-total correlations exceed .50

and lower limit for Cronbach’s alpha is .70

indicating above the minimum value of 0.70, which

is considered acceptable as a good indication of

reliability (Hair et al., 1998). Based on the results of

the pilot test and feedback from experts, the final

version was modified considering questionnaire

design, wording, and measurement scale.

4.3. Data analysis

Principal component analyses were used to determine

the underlying dimensions of the historical, common,

unique image, overall image of brand, perceived

quality and loyalty components of Shiraz, Isfahan,

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


36

and Kermanshah. Confirmatory factor analysis and

SEM were utilized to test the conceptual model of

historical destination branding. the

data was processed with the statistical package SPSS

22.0 and AMOS 18.

5. RESULTS

5.1. Underlying dimensions of historical image

The result of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was

significant ( =2274.63, df= 120, KMO2= 0.767),

indicating that nonzero correlation existed. These two

tests suggested that the data was suitable for an

exploratory factor analysis. A principal component

analysis with orthogonal (VARIMAX) rotations was

assessed to identify underlying dimensions of

historical image. Based on the eigenvalue greater

than one, scree-plot criteria, and the percentage of

variance criterion, five components were chosen

which captured 56% of the total variance. Among the

19 image attributes, three items had communalities

less than .50 and factor loading less than .40. When

there are variables that do not load on any factor or

whose communalities are deemed too low, each can

be evaluated for possible deletion (Hair et al., 1998).

The results of the principle component analysis with

orthogonal (VARIMAX) rotations and rotated

component matrix are shown in Table 1. The scree

plot indicated that four factors may be appropriate;

however, based on a combination of scree plot and

eigenvalue greater than one approach, five factors

were retained. Components were labeled based on

highly loaded items and the common characteristics

of items they included. The component labels are

“Historical buildings” (Factor 1), “Service of

historical places” (Factor 2), “Historical knowledge”

(Factor 3), “Price and avaiability” (Factor 4), and

“Historical attraction” (Factor 5). These five factors

were later used to construct summated scales as

2 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling

Adequacy.

independent variables for structural equation

modeling (SEM) for hypotheses testing.

5.2. Underlying dimensions of unique image

The results of a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of

Sampling Adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of

sphericity indicated that unique image set was

appropriate for factor analysis( =558.18, df= 15,

KMO= 0.692). Based on the eigenvalue greater than

one, scree-plot criteria, and the percentage of

variance criterion, two factors were extracted through

principal component analysis with orthogonal

(VARIMAX) rotations was assessed to identify

underlying dimensions of unique image. The two-

factor model captured 55.3% of the total. A total of

two items had communalities less than .50 and factor

loading less than .40. Table 2 shows the results of the


(VARIMAX) rotations. The scree plot indicated that

two factors may be appropriate. A combination of

scree plot and eigenvalue greater than 1 approach

selected three factors. Factors were labeled based on


of items they included. They are labeled as “Unique

customs of local people” (Factor 1)and “Unique

facilities of historical destination” (Factor 2) (Table

2). These two factors were later used to construct

summated scales as independent variables for

structural equation modeling (SEM) for hypotheses

testing.

5.3. Underlying dimensions of common image



sphericity indicated that common image set was

appropriate for factor analysis ( =4046.23, df=

190, KMO= 0.830). Based on the eigenvalue greater

than one, scree-plot criteria, and the percentage of

variance criterion, five factors were extracted through



underlying dimensions of common image. The five-

factor model captured 55.8% of the total. A total of

four items had communalities less than .50 and

factor loading less than .40. Table 3 shows the results

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


37

of the principal component analysis with orthogonal


five factors may be appropriate. A combination of


selected five factors. Factors were labeled based on


of items they included. They are labeled as

“Affective image” (Factor 1), “Local properties”

(Factor 2), “information and facilities” (Factor 3)

“Perception image” (Factor 4) “Cognitive image”

(Factor 5) (Table 3). These three factors were later

used to construct summated scales as independent

variables for structural equation modeling (SEM) for

hypotheses testing.

testing.

Table 1: Rotated Component Matrixa (historical image)

Component

Historical

buildings

Service of

historical

places

Historical

knowledge

Price and

avaiability

Historical

attraction

Q7_1 .813

Q8_1 .756

Q6_1 .610

Q9_1 .543

Q16_1 .816

Q17_1 .698

Q15_1 .648

Q12_1 .816

Q13_1 .774

Q11_1 .344 .500

Q5_1 .711

Q18_1 .655

Q14_1 .339 .632

Q2_1 .786

Q3_1 .660

Q1_1 .636

Table2: Rotated Component Matrixa(

unique image)

Component

Unique

customs of

local people

Unique

facilities of

historical

destination

Q41_1 .737

Q40_1 .683

Q42_1 .680

Q46_1

.782

Q44_1

.731

Q43_1 .349 .679

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


38

5.4. Underlying dimensions of overall destination

brand image



sphericity indicated that overall destination brand

image set was appropriate for factor analysis (

=3334, df= 45, KMO= 0.910). Based on the

eigenvalue greater than one, scree-plot criteria, and

the percentage of variance criterion, two factors were

extracted through principal component analysis with

orthogonal (VARIMAX) rotations was assessed to

identify underlying dimensions of overall image.

The two-factor model captured 55.3% of the total.

Only one item had communalities less than .50 and

factor loading less than .40. Table 4 shows the results

of the principal component analysis with orthogonal




selected two factors. Factors were labeled based on



“Cognitive brand” (Factor 1) and “Historical brand”

(Factor 2) (Table 4). These two factors were later

used to construct summated scales as independent

variables for structural equation modeling (SEM) for

hypotheses testing.

Table3:Rotated Component Matrixa( common image)

Component

Affective

image

Local

properties

information

and facilities

Perception

image

Cognitive

image

Affective

image

Local

properties

information

and facilities

Perception

image

Cognitive

image

Affective

image

Local

properties

information

and facilities

Perception

image

Cognitive

image

Affective

image

Local

properties

information

and facilities

Perception

image

Cognitive

image

Affective

image

Local

properties

information

and facilities

Perception

image

Cognitive

image

Q66_1 .865 Q67_1 .853

Q69_1 .792

Q65_1 .758 Q68_1 .688

Q25_1 .784

Q22_1 .680 Q26_1 .648

Q21_1 .551

Q24_1 .535 Q37_1 .791

Q36_1 .775

Q38_1 .685 Q29_1 .743

Q28_1 .622

Q30_1 .552 .321 Q31_1 .536

Q34_1 .760

Q35_1 .662 Q33_1 .610

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


39

5.5. Underlying dimensions of perceived quality



sphericity indicated that perceived quality set was

appropriate for factor analysis( =746.62, df= 28,

KMO= 0.705). Based on the eigenvalue greater than

one, scree-plot criteria, and the percentage of

variance criterion, three factors were extracted

through principal component analysis with

orthogonal (VARIMAX) rotations was assessed to

identify underlying dimensions of perceived quality.

The three-factor model captured 58.5% of the total.

A total of four items had communalities less than .50

and factor loading less than .40. Table 5 shows the

results of the principal component analysis with

orthogonal (VARIMAX) rotations. The scree plot

indicated that three factors may be appropriate. A

combination of scree plot and eigenvalue greater than

1 approach selected three factors. Factors were

labeled based on highly loaded items and the

common characteristics of items they included. They

are labeled as “Overall satisfaction” (Factor 1),

“Perceived quality of services” (Factor 2) and ”

Perception of safety and services” (Factor 3) (Table

5). These three factors were later used to construct

summated scales as independent variables for

structural equation modeling (SEM) for hypotheses

testing.

5.6. Underlying dimensions of loyalty of tourist



sphericity indicated that loyalty set was appropriate

for factor analysis ( =979.19, df= 15, KMO=

0.765). Based on the eigenvalue greater than one,

scree-plot criteria, and the percentage of variance

criterion, two factors were extracted through



underlying dimensions of unique image. The two-

factor model captured 61.7% of the total. Only one

item had communalities less than .50 and factor

loading less than .40. Table 6 shows the results of the





selected two factors. Factors were labeled based on



“Intention to repeat” (Factor 1)and “Intention to

recommend” (Factor 2), (Table 6). These two factors

were later used to construct summated scales as

independent variables for structural equation

modeling (SEM) for hypotheses testing.

Table 4:Rotated Component

Matrixa(overall image)

Component

Cognitive brand Historical

brand

o7_1 .804

o6_1 .774 o9_1 .760

o10_1 .745

o8_1 .731 o5_1 .668 .338

o4_1 .610 .429

o2_1 .780 o1_1 .762

o3_1 .744

Table5:Rotated Component Matrixa

(perceived quality)

Component

Overall

satisfact

ion

Perceive

d quality

of services

Perceive

d

quality of

services

Q48_1 .810

Q49_1 .700

Q47_1 .673

Q50_1 .785

Q51_1 .717

Q54_1 .538 .360

Q57_1 .796

Q56_1 .753

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


40

Table6:Rotated Component Matrixa (

loyalty)

Component

Intention to repeat

Intention to recommend

Q59_1 .812 Q60_1 .793

Q62_1 .640

Q61_1 .613 Q64_1 .850

Q63_1 .789

5.7. Measurement model

Through principal component analyses, the five

underlying dimensions of historical image, the two

dimensions of unique image, the five dimensions of

common image, the two dimensions of overall

image, the three dimensions of perceived quality,

the two dimensions of loyalty were identified. There

is no reason to expect uncorrelated perceptions; thus

the factors are allowed to correlate as well (Hair et

al., 1998).

For purposes of CFA3 in this study, AMOS program

(version 18) was chosen to estimate the measurement

model and the construct covariances.

5.8. Confirmatory factor analysis

If correlations in the standardized solution exceed 1.0

or two estimates are highly correlated, one of the

constructs should be removed (Hair et al., 1998).

Based on this, for Confirmatory factor analysis of

historical image measurement model, one component

of historical image, which were greater than 1.0 was

deleted. The deleted component was “Historical

attraction”. The modified measurement model was

then re-estimated for assessing overall model fit. The

overall model fit statistics for the CFA were good (

= 168/7, df = 51, p < .05, GFI=.96, AGFI= .94, CFI=

.94, RMSEA= 0/056 ), indicating that the individual

indicators are behaving as expected.

3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

For Confirmatory factor analysis of unique image

measurement model, one component of historical

image, which were greater than 1.0 was deleted. The

deleted component was “Historical attraction”. The

modified measurement model was then re-estimated

for assessing overall model fit. The overall model fit

statistics for the CFA were good ( = 144/7, df =

29, p < .05, GFI=.96, AGFI= .92, CFI= .96,

RMSEA=0/039), indicating that the individual


For Confirmatory factor analysis of common image

measurement model, The modified measurement

model was then re-estimated for assessing overall

model fit. The overall model fit statistics for the CFA

were good ( = 494/5, df = 165, p < .05, GFI=.93,

AGFI= .92, CFI= .91, RMSEA=0/052), indicating

that the individual indicators are behaving as

expected.

For Confirmatory factor analysis of overall image




were good ( = 144/7, df = 29, p < .05, GFI=.96,

AGFI= .92, CFI= .96, RMSEA=0/073), indicating


expected.

For Confirmatory factor analysis of perceived

quality measurement model, The modified

measurement model was then re-estimated for

assessing overall model fit. The overall model fit

statistics for the CFA were good ( = 41/89, df =

15, p < .05, GFI=.98, AGFI= .96, CFI= .96,

RMSEA= 0/049), indicating that the individual


For Confirmatory factor analysis of loyalty




were good ( = 6/69, df = 4, p < .05, GFI=.98,

AGFI= .99, CFI= .99, RMSEA= 0/030), indicating


expected. These results indicated that all variables

were significantly related to their specified

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


41

constructs, verifying the posited relationships among

indictors and constructs.

5.9. Structural model

Based on the results of CFA, the structural model

was tested. The overall model fit statistics show that

the model is acceptable to represent the hypothesized

constructs ( = 5619/9, df = 1923 , p< .05, CFI=

.75, GFI= .79, AGFI= .77, RMSEA= .051). All the

paths proposed in the structural model were

statistically significant and of the expected positive

direction (Table 7). Thus, all five hypotheses failed to

be rejected

Figure II. Structural Model

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


42

Hypothesis 1, the more positive historical image of a

destination, the more likely visitors would have the

positive common image of the destination, was failed

to reject ( β=0.772; tvalue =7/57; Sig. <0.01).

Hypothesis 2, the more positive unique image of a


positive common image of the destination, was failed

to reject ( β=0.604; tvalue =6/353; Sig. <0.01).

Hypothesis 3, the more positive common image of a


positive overall brand image of the historical

destination, was failed to reject ( β=0.279; tvalue

=5/410; Sig. <0.01). Hypothesis 4, the more positive

overall brand image of the historical destination, the

more likely visitors would have the positive

perceived quality of the historical destination, was

failed to reject ( β=0.310; tvalue =4/780; Sig.

<0.01). Hypothesis 5, the more positive perceived

quality of the historical destination, the more likely

visitors would have loyalty to the historical

destination, was failed to reject ( β=0.730; tvalue

=7/047; Sig. <0.01).

6. CONCLUSIONS AND

IMPLICATIONS

Destination branding is the set of marketing activities

that support the creation of a name, symbol, logo,

word mark or other graphic that readily identifies and

differentiates a destination (Blain et al., 2005). This

study analyzed the signification and importance of

historical destination branding, historical destination

image and the role of perceived quality and loyalty

in the destination branding for Iranian historical

destinations. Another aim of this study was to

examine the image of the Shiraz, Isfahan and

kermanshah by seeking to uncover perceptions and

attitudes towards the destination. As visitors seek out

differences in culture, heritage and landscape from

their everyday life when they choose a destination,

destinations should develop images based on their

unique features to differentiate themselves from their

competitors (Bramwell and Rawding, 1996). Insights

gained from these findings therefore provide

additional information to destination marketers in

developing the unique attributes of the Iranian

historical cities.

The purpose of this study was to develop a relatively

new concept of historical destination branding in the

marketing and tourism field by applying traditional

branding theory and practices to the Shiraz, Isfahan

and Kermanshah cities in order to build a unique and

favourable destination brand in the Iranian domestic

tourism market. Both researchers and practitioners

emphasize the importance of historical image

creation and destination differentiation as integral

elements in building a strong historical destination

brand. It was proposed that common destination

image (i.e., brand image) is a multi-dimensional

construct, influenced by the historical and unique,

images that collectively affect tourist behaviors.

However, based on research findings Historical

image of the tourist destination in Iran Historical

Image forming components include: historical sites,

the availability of tour guides, tours for historical

sites, Museums, Historical Buildings, Historical

Cemetery, historical mosques, knowledge of history,

historical Advertising, historical places brochure,

tours price, availability of historical places and

historical places ticket price. But unique image

components include: Museums, Historical

celebrations, historical architecture, historical

symbols, Culture, Natural attraction and

Hospitality.also common image components include:

Pleasant, exciting, friendly, Hospitality, lifestyles,

Security, natural landscape, music, health and

Handicrafts.

In spite of the fact that Shiraz is the first choice of

Iranian historical tourist, Isfahan is second and

Kermanshah is third. The findings provide historical

image have more impact on common image than

unique image. All research hypotheses were partially

supported. Results of this study have provided useful

strategic directions for the Iranian historical cities to

improve its destination competitiveness.

6.1. Limitations and further research

The findings and conclusion of this research should

be read consideration of several limitations.

First the population of this study was limited to

visitors who stopped at shiraz city ( pasargad and

persepolis), isfahan city (naghshe jahan square and

jamee mosque), and Kermanshah ( sang nebeshte

biston) all of have been registered in UNESCO4 list

of world human heritage during an four-week period

and It may not be generalizable for other historical

places in iran.

The second and main limitation of this research is

the credibility of the research findings based on the

4 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


43

selected sample. Future research should be

undertaken using a bigger sample, for a better

understanding of the determinants of the destination’s

image and its relationship with the destination

branding.

Last, There may be other factors influencing the

historical brand image formation process and other

items that form the image of a destination. This study

is limited to including demoghraphic variables that

repeatedly appear in the literature.

We believe that historical destination branding

activities should also be focused on maintaining and

enhancing historical visitor loyalty to ensure long-

term destination success. As such, we suggest that

improve the historical knowledge, relationship

management techniques and practices designed to

strengthen visitor loyalty within the context of

destination branding could usefully be explored in

future studies. In the end, the historical image of a

city is central to its success (or failure) as a historical

destination but it needs to be related to other aspects

of the brand.

7.REFRENCES

1. Alcaniz, E.B., Sanchez, I.S. and Blas, S.S.

(2009), The functional-psychological continuum

in the cognitive image of a destination: a

confirmatory analysis, Tourism Management,

Vol. 30, pp. 715-23.

2. Baloglu, S. and Brinberg, D. (1997), Affective

images of tourism destination, Journal of Travel

Research, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 11-15.

3. Baloglu, S. and McCleary, K.W. (1999), A model

of destination image formation, Annals of

Tourism Research, Vol. 35, pp. 868-97.

4. Beerli, A., Diza, G. and Perez, P.J. (2002), The

configuration of the university image and its

relationship with the satisfaction of students,

Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 40,

pp. 486-504.

5. Beerli, A. & Martin, J. D. (2004). Tourists’

Characteristics and the Perceived Image of

Tourist Destinations: A Quantitative Analysis –

A Case Study of Lanzarote, Spain. Tourism

Management, 25, 623–636.

6. Bigne, J.E., Sanchez, M.I. and Sanchez, J.

(2001), Tourism image, evaluation variables and

after purchase behaviour: inter-relationship,

Tourism Management, Vol. 22, pp. 607-16.

7. Botha, C., Crompton, J. L., & Kim, S. (1999).

Developing a revised competitive position for

Sun/Lost City, South Africa. Journal of Travel

Research, 37(4), 341-352.

8. Brady M. and Cronin J. (2001): Some New

Thoughts on Conceptualizing Perceived Service

Quality: A Hierarchical Approach. Journal of

Marketing, 65 (3), pp. 34-49.

9. Bramwell, B. and Rawding, L. (1996), “Tourism

marketing images of industrial cities”, Annals

ofTourism Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 201-21.

10. Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive

destination of the future. Tourism Management,

21(1), 97-116.

11. Cai, A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural

destinations. Annals of TourismResearch, 29(3),

720-742.

12. Calantone, R. J., Benedetto, A. D., Hakam, A., &

Bojanic, D. C. (1989). Multiple multinational

tourism positioning using correspondence

analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 28(2), 25-

32.

13. Castro, C.B., Armario, E.M. and Ruiz, D.M.

(2007), The influence of market heterogeneity on

the relationship between a destination’s image

and tourists’ future behaviour, Tourism

Management, Vol. 28, pp. 175-87.

14. Chen, C.F. and Tsai, D.C. (2007), How

destination image and evaluative factors affect

behavioural intentions?, Tourism Management,

Vol. 28, pp. 1115-22.

15. de Chernatony, L. and Dall ‟Olmo Riley, F.

(1998), Modelling the components of a brand,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 No.

11/12, pp. 1074-90.

16. de Chernatony, L. and Segal-Horn, S. (2001),

Building on services’ characteristics to develop

successful services brands, Journal of Marketing

Management, Vol. 17 No. 7-8, pp. 645-70.

17. Chi, C. and Qu, H. (2008), Examining the

structural relationships of destination image and

destination loyalty: an integrated approach,

Tourism Management, Vol. 29, pp. 624-36.

18. Chon, K. S., Weaver, P. A., & Kim, C. Y. (1991).

Marketing your community: image analysis in

Norfolk. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant

Administration Quarterly, 31(4), 31-37.

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


44

19. Crompton, J. (1979), An assessment of the image

of Mexico as a vacation destination and the

influence of geographical location upon that

image, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 17,pp.

18-24.

20. Crompton, J. L., Fakeye, P. C., & Lue, C. (1992).

Positioning: The example of the lower Rio

Grande Valley in the winter long stay destination

market. Journal of Travel Research, 31(2), 20-26.

21. Etchner, C.M. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1993), “The

measurement of destination image: an empirical

assessment”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol.

31, Spring, pp. 3-13.

22. Fakeye and Crompton, J., L. (1991). Image

Differences Between Prospective, First-Time,

and Repeat Visitors to the Lower Rio Grande

Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30 (2), 10-

16.

23. Fan, Y. (2006). Branding the nation: what is

being branded? Journal of Vacation Marketing,

12(1), 5-14.

24. Gallarza, M., Saura, I. & Garcia, H. (2002).

Destination Image: Towards a Conceptual

Framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 56-

78.

25. Gardner, B.B. and Levy, S.J. (1955), The product

and the brand, Harvard Business Review, March-

April, pp. 33-39.

26. Go, F., & Govers, R. (2000). Integrated quality

management for tourist destinations: a European

perspective on achieving competitiveness.

Tourism Management, 21 (1), 79-88.

27. Goeldner, C.R., Ritchie, J.R.B., & MacIntosh,

R.W. (2000). Tourism: Principles, Practices,

Philosophies, 8th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:

New York.

28. Graves, N., & Skinner, H. (2009). The

importance of destination image analysis to UK

rural tourism. Journal of Marketing Practice:

Applied Marketing Science, 28, 486-507.

29. Grönroos, C. (2000): Service Management and

Marketing. A Customer Relationship

Management Approach. 2nd

ed. West Sussex

(UK): John Wiley & Sons.

30. Grosspietsh, M. (2006). Perceived and Projected

Images of Rwanda: Visitor and International

Tour Operator Perspectives. Tourism

Management, 27, 225–234.

31. Gunn, C.A. (1997), Vacationscape: Developing

Tourist Areas,2nd ed., Taylor & Francis,

Washington, DC.

32. Harrison-Walker,L. J. (2001). The measurement

of word-of-mouth communication and an

investigation of service quality and customer

commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of

Service Research, 4(1), 60-75.

33. Hunt, J.D. (1975), Image as a factor in tourism

development, Journal of Travel Research, Vol.

13, No. 3, pp. 1-7.

34. Hutchinson, J. W., &Alba, J. W. (1991). Ignoring

irrelevant information: situational determinants of

consumer learning. Journal of Consumer

Research,18 (December), 325-345.

35. JENKINS, O. (1999). Understanding and

Measuring Tourist Destination Images.

International Journal of Tourism Research, 1, 1-

15.

36. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring,

and managing customer-based brand equity.

Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

37. Keller, K. L. (1998). Strategic brand

management: building, measuring, and managing

brand equity.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-

Hall, USA.

38. Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand

management: Building, measuring, and managing

brand equity (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

39. Kotler, P. (1997).Marketing management:

analysis, planning, implementation and

control.(9th ed.), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle

River, NJ, USA.

40. Lee, T.H. (2009), A structural model to examine

how destination image, attitude, and motivation

affect the future behavior of tourists, Leisure

Sciences, Vol. 31, pp. 215-36.

41. Mihalic, T. (2000). Environmental management

of a tourist destination: a factor of tourism

competitiveness. Tourism Management, 21(1),

65-78.

42. Moilanen, Teemu & Rainisto, Seppo. How to

brand nations, cities and destinations : a planning

book for place branding (Palgrave Macmillan,

2009)

43. Morrison, A., & Anderson, D. (2002).

Destination branding. Available from:

http://www.macvb.org/intranet/presentation/Desti

http://www.macvb.org/intranet/presentation/DestinationBrandingLOzarks6-10-02.%20ppt%20Accessed%2018.05.03

Jan. 2014. Vol. 3, No.5 ISSN 2307-227X


45

nationBrandingLOzarks6-10-02. ppt Accessed

18.05.03.

44. Mykletun, R. J., Crotts, J. C., & Mykletun, A.

(2001). Positioning an island destination in the

peripheral area of the Baltics: a flexible approach

to market segmentation.,Tourism Management,

22(5), 493-500.

45. Oliver, R.L. (1997): Satisfaction: A Behavioural

Perspective on the Consumer. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

46. Olson, J.C. and Dover, P.A. (1979):

Disconfirmation of Consumer Expectations

through Product Trial. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 64 (2), pp. 179-189.

47. Pike, S. & Ryan, C. (2004). Destination

Positioning Analysis Through a Comparison of

Cognitive, Affective, and Conative Perceptions.

Journal of Travel Research, 42, 333–342.

48. Pike, S. (2004). Destination brand positioning

slogans – towards the development of a set of

accountability criteria. Acta Turistica, 16, 2, 102–

124.

49. Pike, S. (2009). Destination brand positions of a

competitive set of near-homedestinations.

Tourism Management, 30(6), 857-866.

50. Qu,H., Q. Lisa, H. K., Holly H. I. (2011). A

model of destination branding: Integrating the

concepts of the branding and destination image,

Tourism Management, Vol. 32,pp. 465-476.

51. Ritchie, J. R. B., Ritchie, R. J. B. (1998). The

branding to tourism destination: past

achievements & future challenges. In:

Marrakech, Morocco: Annual congress of the

International Association of Scientific Experts in

Tourism.

52. Shimp, T. (2007) Integrated Marketing

Communications inAdvertising and

Promotion.International Student edition, 7 th

edition. China, Thomson SouthWestern, Ch. 1.

53. Tasci, A. D. A., Kozak, M. (2006). Destination

brands vs. destination image – do we know what

we mean?. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12, 4,

299–317.

54. Uysal, M., Chen, J., & Williams, D. (2000).

Increasing state market share through a regional

positioning. Tourism Management, 21(1), 89-96.

55. Wagner, O., Peters, M. (2009). The Development

and Communication of Destination Brand

Identity – The Case of the Alps, in Tourism

Destination Development and Branding,

Proceedings, October 14–17, 2–18.

56. Walmsley, D.J. and Jenkins, J.M. (1993),

Appraisive images of tourist areas: an application

of personal constructs,Australian Geographer,

Vol. 24, pp. 1-13.

57. Walmsley, D.J. and Young, M. (1998),

Evaluative images and tourism: the use of

personal constructs to describe the structure of

destination images, Journal of Travel Research,

Vol. 36, Winter, pp. 65-9.

58. Young, M. (1995), Evaluative constructs of

domestic tourist places, Australian Geographic

Studies, Vol. 33, pp. 272-86.



Date post:	19-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	10 times
Download:	1 times

A MODEL OF DESTINATION BRANDING FOR IRANIAN … · 2.2. Destination branding Destination branding...

Documents