Você está na página 1de 24

Cross-Cultural Model of Customer-Based

Brand Equity for a Tourism Destination


Maja Konecnik Ruzzier*, Bostjan Antoncic** and Mitja Ruzzier***

The purpose of the paper is to present a cross-cultural model of the customer-based brand equity for a
tourism destination, encompassing four proposed dimensions—awareness, image, quality and loyalty.
Previous research findings on the concept of measurement invariance are employed in the empirical
investigation of the proposed model, which is tested on two competitive European tourism destinations
(Slovenia and Austria) from the perspective of two culturally heterogeneous tourist groups (Germans and
Croatians). The results of the cross-cultural model imply that the model is robust and cross-culturally
comparable because neither the selected tourism destination nor the potential tourists’ evaluations exert
an impact on the dimensions of the construct proposed in the paper. The results at different levels indicate
that the conditions for configural and metric invariance are fully satisfied, whereas the conditions for
scalar invariance are partially satisfied.

Introduction
In the past, branding research was mostly associated with physical goods (Aaker and Keller,
1990; and Na et al., 1999). These days research interest is also focused on analyzing services
brands (De Chernatony and Dall’Olmo, 1999; and De Chernatony and McDonald, 2001)
as well as corporate brands (Ind, 1997; Gregory and Wiechmann, 1999; and Dowling,
2002). However, destination branding is one of the newest research areas (Cai, 2002;
Morgan et al., 2002; Morgan and Pritchard, 2002; Olins, 2002; Papadopoulus and Heslop,
2002; Konecnik, 2004; and Tasci et al., 2007). Researchers have broadly debated the extent
to which the branding principles traditionally developed for product brands can also apply
to service and corporate brands. In investigating the differences and similarities between
product and service brands, De Chernatony and Dall’Olmo (1999) concluded that the
concept of a brand is similar between products and services, although the emphasis given
to the different elements of branding strategies may differ. Therefore, there is a need for
adjustments in emphasis to reflect the characteristics of services, organizations or even
destinations.
The concept of brand equity has generated great interest among marketing researchers
over the past 15 years (Aaker, 1991 and 1996; and Keller, 1993 and 1998). Although the
* Associate Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva Ploscad 17,
1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: maja.konecnik@ef.uni-lj.si
** Professor of Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva Ploscad 17,
1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: bostjan.antoncic@ef.uni-lj.si
*** Professor of Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Management, University of Primorska, Cankarjeva 5, 6000 Koper,
Slovenia. E-mail: mitja.ruzzier@fm-kp.si

© 2014 IUP. AllModel


Cross-Cultural RightsofReserved.
Customer-Based Brand Equity for a Tourism Destination 7
financial aspect of the concept was initially investigated (Barwise, 1993), its perspective
from the customer’s point of view is emerging as one of the preferred research interests
within the branding literature (Keller, 1993 and 1998; Faircloth et al., 2001; Yoo and
Donthu, 2001; and Shah and Norjaya, 2010). In spite of the broad interest in investigating
the brand equity phenomenon from the customer’s point of view, so far no single approach
to its theoretical conceptualization has been accepted (Agarwal and Rao, 1996; and Erdem
and Swait, 1998). In addition to many open questions in the theoretical area, several
dilemmas arise about its accurate measurement (Yoo and Donthu, 2001). A number of
measuring instruments for brand equity were proposed, either at the theoretical
(Kamakura and Russell, 1993; and Park and Srinivasan, 1994) or empirical (Baldinger and
Rubinson, 1996) levels. Unlike the previous level of versatility of brand equity
measurement instruments, there is recognition of some efforts leading towards the
adjustment of brand equity measures. These steps are evident in analyses of several
researchers (Na et al., 1999; Low and Lamb, 2000; Mackay, 2001; Faircloth et al., 2001; and
Yoo and Donthu, 2001 and 2002) based on Aaker’s (1991) and (1996) and Keller’s (1993)
and (1998) categorization.
In combining previous theoretical and empirical findings, this paper follows the line
of authors like Aaker (1991) and (1996) and Yoo and Donthu (2001) and (2002), who
claim that the customer’s evaluation of a brand comprises awareness, image, quality and
loyalty dimensions. In the process of transferring the Customer-Based Brand Equity
concept (hereinafter CBBE) to a tourism destination brand, an attempt is made to
incorporate previous research findings in the marketing as well as tourism areas. The
tourism destination phenomenon has attracted enormous interest within the scientific
tourism literature and has mostly been investigated under the topic of tourism destination
image (Hunt, 1975; Crompton, 1979; Phelps, 1986; Um and Crompton, 1990; Ahmed,
1991; Fakeye and Crompton, 1991; Echtner and Ritchie, 1993; Gartner, 1993; Hu and
Ritchie, 1993; Baloglu and McCleary, 1999a and 1999b; Baloglu, 2001; and Gallarza et al.,
2002). Accordingly, the investigated image concept also probably included a qualitative
perspective on the tourism destination’s evaluation (Baker and Crompton, 2000).
Contrary to the enormous work done in the tourism destination image area, fewer studies
investigated the awareness (Woodside and Sherrell, 1977; Woodside and Lysonski, 1989;
and Goodall, 1993) and especially loyalty (Oppermann, 2000) perspectives of the
destination phenomenon. Therefore, their conceptualization involved as much relevant
information as possible, including from the marketing research literature.
Most tourism destinations depend heavily on international tourists. To evaluate that
tourism destination from the perspective of the potential foreign tourists is thus extremely
important. These evaluations can provide a good basis for tourism destination’s marketing
strategies (Konecnik and Ruzzier, 2006). However, the main question that arises is whether
these evaluations, perceived from the viewpoint of culturally different tourists, can be
meaningfully compared. Authors dealing with cross-cultural studies (Steenkamp and
Baumgartner, 1998) argue that, before drawing conclusions from those studies, appropriate

8 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XI, No. 1, 2014


techniques for their comparison should be employed. This guideline also reflects the key
purpose of this paper, which involves the presentation of a cross-cultural model of CBBE
for a tourism destination. This concept is tested through an empirical model of two
competitive tourism destinations—Slovenia and Austria—from the perspective of two
culturally heterogeneous tourist groups (Germans and Croatians).

Literature Review
The Customer’s Perspective on the Tourism Destination Phenomenon
The customer’s perspective on the tourism destination phenomenon began to attract
interest more than 30 years ago when Gunn (1972) and Hunt (1975) started to stress its
importance in the destination selection process. The fact that destination image plays an
important role in the destination selection and evaluation process has been confirmed in
many image studies (Gartner, 1993; and Baloglu and McCleary, 1999a). In reviewing
previous studies, Pike (2002) found 142 image papers in the last three decades that have
directly or indirectly investigated destination image topics. Within those studies, image
has been generally employed as a multidimensional construct and has rarely been
investigated in its relationship with other dimensions which could also play an important
role in tourists’ evaluation of a destination.
In 1998, authors started to treat the destination as a brand and since then (i.e., Dosen
et al., 1998; and Pritchard and Morgan, 1998)—which according to Pike (2009) is the first
year when destination brand publications started appearing—interest in investigating the
destination branding concept has been growing. However, the topic has only been
investigated for one decade and authors therefore argue (Konecnik, 2004; Pike, 2009; and
Konecnik and Ruzzier, 2010) that the research field about destination branding remains
in its infancy.
It is commonly accepted by authors that the destination can be treated as a brand, and
this, in turn, brings new dilemmas and ideas concerning how it should be treated. One
area which seems to be very important is the research gap about the concept of brand
equity (Pike, 2009). Authors have started to ask themselves whether a more
comprehensive measure is needed to properly capture the tourists’ perspective on
evaluating a destination. As mentioned, a majority of previous studies have only
investigated the destination image concept. To our knowledge, the first studies which
undertook the transfer of the already investigated concept of CBBE (Keller, 1993; and
Aaker, 1996) to a Tourism Destination (CBBETD) were by Konecnik (2006) and Konecnik
and Gartner (2007). Both studies concluded that it is reasonable to employ a more
comprehensive measure of a destination’s brand evaluation by operationalizing four main
dimensions: awareness, image, quality and loyalty.
In a very short time, the CBBETD concept was also investigated by others (Pike, 2007
and 2009; Konecnik and Ruzzier, 2008; and Boo et al., 2009). Similar to the first two

Cross-Cultural Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity for a Tourism Destination 9


studies, the recent studies concluded that a more comprehensive measure for evaluating
tourists’ perspective of the destination brand is appropriate and that the CBBETD concept
should be more intensively investigated in the future.

Measurement Invariance
In order to develop a measurement instrument (or model) of the CBBETD which can be
meaningfully used in different cultures, recent research findings dealing with the concept
of cross-cultural comparability should be taken into account (Singh, 1995; and Antoncic
and Hisrich, 2001). Within the cross-cultural contributions covering the phenomenon of
consumer behavior, the research topic of measurement invariance (Hui and Triandis,
1985; Byrne et al., 1989; Durvasula et al., 1993; Meredith, 1993; Marsh, 1994; and
Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998) is emerging as one of the preferred areas of
investigation. In general, these contributions seek to answer the question of whether
research instruments or models developed in one country (mostly in the US) can be
meaningfully transferred and applied in other countries. Mostly published in the last 10
years, these contributions clearly stress and employ the importance of measurement
invariance investigations in interpreting the cross-cultural concept (Durvasula et al.,
1993; Byrne, 1994; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998; Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Raju et al.,
2002; and Coenders et al., 2003).
Measurement invariance, which is often used as a synonym for measurement
equivalence (Hui and Triandis, 1985; Drasgow and Kanfer, 1985; and Coenders et al.,
2003), seems to be a necessary step in cross-cultural investigations (Hui and Triandis,
1985; Meredith, 1993; and Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998). Its importance is clearly
evident in this quote from Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998, p. 78): “If evidence
supporting a measure’s invariance is lacking, conclusions based on that scale are at best
ambiguous and at worst erroneous.” The same two authors systematically reviewed and
presented different forms or levels of invariance, proceeding from configural to error
variance invariance. Previous research findings also imply that a lower level of invariance
is required for investigations at a higher level. However, metric invariance investigations
require configural invariance, which is a prerequisite for scalar invariance and further on
for factor covariance, factor variance and error variance invariance (Steenkamp and
Baumgartner, 1998). On average, measurement invariance constructs are examined at a
national level, multi-group level and pooled-data level (Durvasula et al., 1993; and Yoo and
Donthu, 2001).
Sample comparability as a necessary step in cross-national consumer behavior
contributions should also be addressed within the topic of measurement invariance.
Where sample comparability is not achieved, any problems in measurement invariance
could be a consequence of differences in sample characteristics (Steenkamp and
Baumgartner, 1998). National representative samples represent one of the two primary
ways to achieve sample comparability (Sekaran, 1983; and Steenkamp and Baumgartner,
1998).

10 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XI, No. 1, 2014


Data and Methodology
Sample
Data were collected using the Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI)
method. CATI methods, as a new trend in the market research process (Aaker et al., 2004),
are supported by researchers for their extra advantages (Craig and Douglas, 2001), speed
and accuracy of data collection, direct input of responses and facilitation in steering data
collection based on responses. Craig and Douglas (2001) stressed the use of the CATI
method in international research sample collections. The authors chose the CATI method
due to the mentioned advantages as well as the method’s possibility of ensuring Simple
Random Samples (SRS) in both markets.
A professional research agency performed the telephonic interviews in the German
and Croatian markets. Individuals above 18 years of age were invited to participate in the
research. These individuals represent the potential tourist population of both the analyzed
destinations—Slovenia and Austria. The research was conducted in June and July 2003.
The final sample consists of 806 respondents, including 402 from the German market and
404 from the Croatian market. The interviews lasted between 9 and 28 min, with an
average length of 18 min.

The Study Instrument


The study instrument can be divided into four parts in terms of content. The first and
second parts include questions about proposed CBBE dimensions for both investigated
tourism destinations. To avoid any differences in respondents’ answers due to the number
order of questions, Slovenia was in half the cases in the first and in half the cases in the
second part of the study instrument. Where a respondent first answered questions about
Slovenia as a tourism destination, in the second part they answered the same set of questions
for the competitive destination, Austria and vice versa. Since the authors sought the
opinions of respondents who have at least some minimal knowledge of the investigated
country, a filter question was employed at the beginning of the destination’s investigation.
In cases where the respondents had never heard of a country, they were not asked to answer
any more questions concerning that country. In addition, to overcome the problem of any
confusion of a country with other countries with similar names (i.e., Slovakia in the case
of Slovenia or Australia in the case of Austria) an additional sentence on the country’s
geographical position was read out. The third part included questions comparing both
destinations. Only respondents expressing an opinion about both countries were invited to
participate in this part. The fourth part of the study instrument ended with the
socio-demographic characteristics and travel profiles of the respondents.
The study instrument only employed closed questions. A set of variables was employed
for each proposed dimension (awareness, image, perceived quality and loyalty). A unipolar
5-point Likert scale measured the variables whereby 1 = Strongly Disagree and
5 = Strongly Agree. All scales included a neutral mean. Generally, all variables were
measured in positive direction. Only three variables (one for the awareness dimension, the

Cross-Cultural Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity for a Tourism Destination 11


second for image and the third for the quality dimension) had a negative direction
(Spector, 1994). In further analysis, these variables were properly reverse scored. Besides
questions measuring the proposed dimension variables, the study instrument included
questions concerning the travel profiles of respondents as well as their socio-demographic
characteristics. Respondents could choose one of the several answers offered.
The study instrument was originally developed in English. Three other marketing and
tourism destination area researchers examined its wording and the face validity of the
questions. After that, two bilingual experts, fluent in both English and German, translated
the study instrument into the German language. Another bilingual translator (Brislin,
1976) checked the verbal equivalence between the German and English versions through
back-translation. The final version of the study instrument included some adjustments.
The same procedure was repeated for the Croatian version of the questionnaire. Due to
cultural differences in both markets, the final version of the instrument included some
specific details.

Operationalization of the Variables


Scale development followed the suggestions of Churchill (1979). Prior to the main
quantitative research, qualitative researches were conducted with the aim of better
understanding the construct. All of these steps in the development of the measurement
instrument are important because no previous research on a destination area includes the
expected four dimensions of the CBBE concept.
Operationalization of variables followed previous research findings and suggestions for
the development of scales. Because the proposed CBBETD concept has four main
dimensions, the authors considered research findings from different areas. For the
awareness variables operationalization suggestions by Milman and Pizam (1995) as well as
Yoo and Donthu (2002) were employed. The tourism destination image, which also included
the quality dimension, has attracted many empirical studies in tourism research. Therefore,
the operationalization of image and quality variables followed the suggestions of leading
works in this area: Hunt (1975), Gartner (1986 and 1989), Echtner and Ritchie (1993),
Baloglu and McCleary (1999a) and (1999b), Baloglu and Mangaloglu (2001), and Gallarza
et al. (2002). Finally, the operationalization of the variables for tourism destination loyalty
employed earlier research findings about the brand loyalty dimension (Oliver, 1996) and its
application to tourism destination level (Fakeye and Crompton, 1991; Oppermann, 2000;
and Bigne et al., 2001). Content analyses from the qualitative research provided an additional
source when operationalizing the variables. First, findings from the in-depth interviews with
potential tourists were relied on. Second, the authors considered the results of the
qualitative experience survey research. Scale refinement in line with experts’ opinions
represents an additional source of information (Konecnik, 2005).
By combining all the previously mentioned information sources, the final CBBETD
scale consists of five awareness, 16 image, 10 quality and four loyalty variables for
investigating each of the four proposed dimensions.

12 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XI, No. 1, 2014


Results and Discussion
Since the analysis of the CBBETD concept involves two tourism destination brands
(Slovenia and Austria) from the viewpoint of two potential groups of tourists (Germans
and Croatians), all the analyses were made on four main samples: CBBE for Slovenia as
a tourism destination involving German respondents (hereinafter CBBE SLOG); CBBE
for Slovenia as a tourism destination involving Croatian respondents (hereinafter CBBE
SLOC); CBBE for Austria as a tourism destination involving German respondents
(hereinafter CBBE AUSG); and CBBE for Austria as a tourism destination involving
Croatian respondents (hereinafter CBBE AUSC).
To assess the stability between the proposed variables, dimensions and means, the
analysis employed previous methodological research findings on measurement invariance
in different cross-cultural samples (Meredith, 1993; Dawar and Parker, 1994; Mullen,
1995; and Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998). The measurement invariance test was
conducted over three different stages: configural, metric and scalar invariance levels.
Before employing a measurement invariance procedure to compare the results between
different cross-cultural samples, each proposed sample was separately analyzed. As a prior
step to the structural equation modeling technique, exploratory factor analyses were
conducted on four samples. In each sample, exploratory factor analysis included using the
number of factors expected according to theory (four dimensions of the CBBE concept).
Because the variables were grouped together as expected, only poorly fitting variables were
excluded. All four analyses employed the principal axis factoring method and oblimin
rotation. The proposed measures of the appropriateness of exploratory factor analysis
(Hair et al., 1998) found all four exploratory factor analyses being accepted.
After that, a confirmatory factor analysis using EQS software was performed. All four
samples retained variables with high, positive and significant coefficients. The Least-
Squares (LS) estimation method was applied. Checking of the convergence and divergence
of dimensions assessed the fit of confirmatory factor models and inter-dimensional
correlations. For the CBBETD concept, the authors examined the variance extracted in
order to assess convergent and discriminant validity. A reliability test, measured with a
Cronbach alpha, was undertaken for each dimension. Like in the exploratory stage, the
acceptance of all four confirmatory factor analyses reflected the above-mentioned
measures proposed in previous research studies (Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Bentler, 1990;
Anderson and Gerbing, 1988 and 1991; Hair et al., 1998; Hu and Bentler, 1999; Zabkar,
2000; and Cheung and Rensvold, 2002).

Configural Invariance
The authors examined configural measurement invariance at the national level which
means a separate analysis of the data in the four proposed samples (SLOG, SLOC, AUSG,
AUSC). The main aim of this analysis involved confirming whether the German and
Croatian respondents conceptualize the CBBE concept for Slovenia and Austria as a

Cross-Cultural Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity for a Tourism Destination 13


tourism destination in the same way. To meet the criterion of configural invariance for
cross-cultural CBBETD, the authors only employed variables commonly accepted amongst
the proposed samples. Therefore, the cross-cultural measurement instrument for the
CBBETD consists of 14 variables altogether: two awareness variables and four variables
each for image, quality and loyalty dimensions.
The results of the proposed four cross-cultural confirmatory factor analyses of
CBBETD are more or less the same as analyses conducted earlier on separate samples
(Konecnik, 2005; and Konecnik and Gartner, 2007). However, the only difference between
the previously presented analyses on separate samples and the following analyses is evident
in the image dimension, consisting of just four variables (lovely towns and cities,

Table 1: Standardized Solution for the Variables of CBBE Dimensions (Awareness,


Image, Quality and Loyalty) and Fit Statistics for Models

Variable Dimension SLOG SLOC AUSG AUSC


Name of tourism destination (Aw1) AW 0.78 0.81 0.81 0.76
Characteristics of tourism destination AW 0.57 0.59 0.70 0.76
(Aw2)
Lovely towns and cities (Im1) IM 0.73 0.72 0.80 0.63
Interesting historical attractions (Im2) IM 0.65 0.68 0.65 0.56
Good nightlife and entertainment (Im3) IM 0.44 0.51 0.51 0.59
Interesting cultural attractions (Im4) IM 0.59 0.64 0.71 0.62
High quality of accommodation (Q1) Q 0.76 0.68 0.70 0.72
High quality of infrastructure (Q2) Q 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.72
High level of cleanliness (Q3) Q 0.78 0.69 0.71 0.68
High level of personal safety (Q4) Q 0.64 0.66 0.56 0.52
One of the preferred destinations to visit LO 0.75 0.78 0.76 0.62
(Lo1)
Destination provides more benefits (Lo2) LO 0.80 0.82 0.74 0.73
Visit destination in the future (Lo3) LO 0.78 0.80 0.83 0.80
Recommend destination to friends (Lo4) LO 0.87 0.86 0.92 0.74
Note: All standardized solutions (standardized loadings) are statistically significant at 0.01 or a better
probability level. AW – Awareness; IM – Image; Q – Quality; LO – Loyalty.
Fit statistics for SLOG:  2 = 108.9*(df=71);  2/df = 1.53; NFI = 0.97; NNFI = 1.03; CFI = 1.00;
IFI = 1.02; MFI = 1.07; GFI = 0.99; AGFI = 0.99; SRMR = 0.04; RMSEA = 0.00.
Fit statistics for SLOC:  2 = 213.4*(df=71);  2/df = 3.00; NFI = 0.97; NNFI = 1.01; CFI = 1.00;
IFI = 1.01; MFI = 1.03; GFI = 0.99; AGFI = 0.98; SRMR = 0.04; RMSEA = 0.00.
Fit statistics for AUSG:  2 = 135.1*(df=71);  2/df = 1.90; NFI = 0.97; NNFI = 1.01; CFI = 1.00;
IFI = 1.01; MFI = 1.03; GFI = 0.99; AGFI = 0.99; SRMR = 0.04; RMSEA = 0.00.
Fit statistics for AUSC:  2 = 169.9*(df=71);  2/df = 2.39; NFI = 0.93; NNFI = 0.98; CFI = 0.98;
IFI = 0.98; MFI = 0.96; GFI = 0.98; AGFI = 0.97; SRMR = 0.05; RMSEA = 0.03
*Probability value for the  2-statistic is 0.00000.

14 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XI, No. 1, 2014


interesting historical attractions, good nightlife and entertainment, and interesting
cultural attractions) within the cross-cultural measurement instrument. At a previous
stage, the image dimension consisted of nine variables in the investigation of CBBE
SLOG, 10 variables in the case of CBBE SLOC, five variables in the case of CBBE AUSG,
and finally, six variables in the case of CBBE AUSC.
The fit indexes for the cross-cultural confirmatory factor analysis, consisting of
fourteen variables, indicate an excellent level of fit for all four models (see the note in
Table 1). The authors checked the results following suggestions for accepting different
indexes drawn from several research findings in this area (Bentler and Bonett, 1980;
Bentler, 1990; Anderson and Gerbing, 1991; Hu and Bentler, 1999; and Cheung and
Rensvold, 2002). Except for the measure of the 2-statistic, where the significance level
was not greater than 0.00 in all proposed models, all other investigated indexes reached
the level needed for their acceptance. However, the results of further investigated indexes:
Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI), Bentler-Bonett Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI),
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Bollen Fit Index (IFI), McDonald Fit Index (MFI), Goodness-
of-Fit Index (GFI) and Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) exceeded the suggested
threshold of 0.90. In addition, the models are also accepted due to measures of
Standardized Root Mean Square Residuals (SRMR) and Root Mean-Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA), with values less than 0.05.
The investigation of the correlations between the dimension (Table 2), construct
reliability and variance extracted measures (Table 3) confirmed the configural measurement
invariance between the German and Croatian respondents. The correlations between the
CBBETD dimensions are significant and range from 0.32 to 0.69, demonstrating the
convergence but not the redundancy of the dimension. Internal consistency measures were
calculated with the aim of confirming the model’s reliability and validity. On average, the
CBBETD dimensions demonstrated good reliability (Table 3), which exceeded the
threshold of 0.70 (Hair et al., 1998). This good reliability is especially evident in the loyalty
and image dimensions, as well as in the quality dimension. On the contrary, the awareness
dimension only partly fulfils this criterion of acceptance. The suggested minimum
criterion was only reached in two samples, while the results of Slovenia’s awareness
reliability measures were slightly below the expected level. However, this situation can be

Table 2: Correlations Between CBBE Dimensions


SLOG SLOC AUSG AUSC
AW IM Q LO AW IM Q LO AW IM Q LO AW IM Q LO
AW 1 0.43 0.47 0.58 1 0.44 0.39 0.41 1 0.49 0.50 0.52 1 0.54 0.34 0.32
IM 1 0.62 0.53 1 0.69 0.67 1 0.56 0.43 1 0.45 0.43
Q 1 0.61 1 0.63 1 0.49 1 0.48
LO 1 1 1 1
Note: All correlations are statistically significant at 0.05 or a better probability level.

Cross-Cultural Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity for a Tourism Destination 15


Table 3: Internal Consistency Measures for Dimensions
SLOG SLOC AUSG AUSC
Sample 
Dimension Cronbach VE
Cronbach
VE
Cronbach
VE
Cronbach
VE
   
Awareness 0.62 0.47 0.66 0.50 0.72 0.56 0.72 0.56
Image 0.75 0.43 0.76 0.44 0.77 0.47 0.73 0.40
Quality 0.80 0.50 0.75 0.44 0.74 0.42 0.73 0.40
Loyalty 0.85 0.59 0.86 0.60 0.86 0.61 0.77 0.46
Note: VE – Variance Extracted.

partly explained by the minimum number of variables (two) included in the awareness
dimension. The measure of variance extracted (Table 3) was found to be satisfactory (over
the threshold of 0.50) in the awareness and loyalty dimensions and somewhat below the
expected level for the image and quality dimensions. Because this criterion of construct
validity was not satisfactory for the image and quality dimensions, the authors compared
the measures of variance extracted for the image and quality dimensions with the squared
correlation between the expected dimensions and any other dimension. In the comparison
of the variance extracted and squared correlation between the image and quality
dimensions, the higher measure of variance extracted was confirmed in a comparison with
at least one suspected correlation, indicating acceptance of the model’s discriminant
validity. The only exception in this case was in the sample of Slovenia’s evaluation by
Croatian respondents, where the measure of squared correlation between image and
quality dimensions (0.48) was greater than either the variance extracted for the image
(0.44) or quality (0.44) dimension.

Metric Invariance
To assess the metric invariance of a CBBE measure for a tourism destination, the authors
estimated two multi-group models for proposed tourism destination brands (Slovenia and
Austria) in which each country’s sample (Germans and Croatians) served as a group. In
addition, the concept of metric invariance to two other multi-group models was employed.
The authors also estimated the metric invariance for each country sample (Germans and
Croatians) where the proposed tourism destination brands (Slovenia and Austria) served
as a group. For all four multi-group proposed models, equality constraints related to each
free factor loading (Byrne, 1994), which means ten equality constraints for each proposed
multi-group model. On the contrary, the cross-group constraints cannot be specified for
four fixed parameters. The fixed parameters in this case represent the first variable in the
construct (i.e., variable of TD name, variable describing lovely towns and cities, quality
of accommodation, and loyalty variables of investigated destination as a preferred
destination for visitation).
Fit statistics employed for the multi-group population analysis (see the note in
Table 4) indicate that the multi-group metric invariance of the CBBETD model is

16 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XI, No. 1, 2014


acceptable according to all the investigated measures. However, the models are even
acceptable due to the insignificant 2-statistic, which was confirmed in both models.
Further, the measures of NFI, NNFI, CFI, IFI, MFI, GFI and AGFI considerably exceeded
the threshold of 0.90, while the values for SRMR and RMSEA are equal to or below the
level of acceptance. The 2-statistic as well as all fit indices indicate full metric invariance
for both models.
A quick overview of the standardized variable (parameter) loadings between both
proposed models (Table 4) indicates that the variable loadings for Slovenia and Austria
are invariant between German and Croatian respondents because the standardized
loadings between German and Croatian respondents for Slovenia (and Austria) are more
or less the same. Similar conclusions can also be drawn for other two multi-group models,

Table 4: Standardized Solution (Standardized Loadings) for the Variables


of CBBE Dimensions in Multiple Population Analysis
SLO AUS G C
Variable D
SLOG SLOC AUSG AUSG GSLO GAUS CSLO CAUS
Name of TD AW 0.77 0.82 0.77 0.78 0.73 0.83 0.73 0.83
Characteristics of TD AW 0.55 0.58 0.73 0.72 0.58 0.68 0.61 0.68
Lovely towns and cities IM 0.78 0.78 0.75 0.75 0.79 0.81 0.71 0.72
Interesting historical attractions IM 0.69 0.72 0.68 0.60 0.65 0.69 0.70 0.65
Good nightlife & entertainment IM 0.49 0.50 0.55 0.51 0.47 0.50 0.56 0.53
Interesting cultural attractions IM 0.62 0.64 0.74 0.67 0.67 0.70 0.69 0.65
High quality of accommodation Q 0.75 0.70 0.72 0.69 0.75 0.70 0.79 0.70
High quality of infrastructure Q 0.76 0.74 0.74 0.72 0.79 0.72 0.77 0.69
High level of cleanliness Q 0.77 0.71 0.70 0.68 0.78 0.73 0.76 0.67
High level of personal safety Q 0.66 0.63 0.57 0.55 0.63 0.58 0.65 0.58
One of the preferred TD to visit LO 0.80 0.78 0.74 0.65 0.79 0.76 0.77 0.65
TD provides more benefits LO 0.81 0.82 0.75 0.66 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.69
Visit TD in the future LO 0.77 0.78 0.88 0.73 0.79 0.82 0.83 0.71
Recommend TD to friends LO 0.86 0.88 0.89 0.79 0.89 0.91 0.87 0.77
Note: All standardized solutions (standardized loadings) were statistically significant at 0.01 or a better
probability level.
Fit statistics for SLO:  2 = 100.9*(df=152);  2/df = 0.66; NFI = 0.97; NNFI = 1.02; CFI = 1.00;
IFI = 1.02; MFI = 1.05; GFI = 0.99; AGFI = 0.99; SRMR = 0.04; RMSEA = 0.00.
Fit statistics for AUS:  2 = 180.2**(df=152);  2/df = 1.18; NFI = 0.94; NNFI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99;
IFI = 0.99; MFI = 0.98; GFI = 0.98; AGFI = 0.97; SRMR = 0.05; RMSEA = 0.02.
Fit statistics for G:  2 = 107.7***(df=152);  2/df = 0.71; NFI = 0.97; NNFI = 1.02; CFI = 1.00;
IFI = 1.01; MFI = 1.04; GFI = 0.99; AGFI = 0.97; SRMR = 0.04; RMSEA = 0.00.
Fit statistics for C:  2 = 164.6****(df=152);  2/df = 1.08; NFI = 0.94; NNFI = 0.99; CFI = 1.00;
IFI = 1.00; MFI = 0.99; GFI = 0.98; AGFI = 0.97; SRMR = 0.05; RMSEA = 0.01.
Probability value for  2 statistic is: * 0.99952; ** 0.05901; *** 0.99743; and **** 0.23067

Cross-Cultural Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity for a Tourism Destination 17


where the concept of invariance for the Germans’ and Croatians’ evaluations for the two
different destinations was investigated. In addition, an examination of probability values
associated with the maximum likelihood univariate and multivariate 2 test statistics
reveals that all proposed 10 factor loadings are invariant in all four samples because none
of the factor loadings is significantly different across both proposed groups (all probability
values are well above 0.05). These results indicate that all four measurement models are
fully invariant at this stage, implying that the prerequisite for testing scalar invariance is
fulfilled.

Scalar Invariance
Due to the full configural and metric invariance allowing the CBBETD concept’s
confirmation, it is appropriate to examine the mean differences in both models across the
two groups of respondents. Specifically, differences in the latent means of awareness,
image, quality and loyalty dimensions are also tested. To conduct these analyses, the
authors followed suggestions for testing the latent mean structure with the EQS program
(Byrne, 1994). Within the EQS program only the maximum likelihood method is available
for testing scalar invariance. Therefore, contrary to the previously used least-squares
method, the maximum likelihood method is used in this analysis. With the aim to
transform the covariance model into a mean model, the EQS program incorporated two
unique ‘tricks’: the creation of a constant variable (V999) and reconceptualization of the
independent variables as dependent variables (Byrne, 1994). Therefore, in addition to the
equality constraints related to 10 free factor loadings the authors further employed 14
constraints related to the measured variable.
Fit indexes on the multi-group level (see the note in Appendix) indicated that the
concept of scalar invariance of the CBBETD model is only partially accepted. Not all of
the fit indexes exceeded the suggested threshold for their acceptance. Mostly, this lower
value is recognized when testing the concept of scalar invariance for Slovenia for Germans
and Croatians and the Croatians’ evaluation of Slovenia and Austria.
Further, mostly same conclusion can be drawn from the review of the maximum
likelihood 2 univariate and multivariate statistics for both the concepts. Results drawn
from cumulative multivariate statistics show that significant mean differences in
Slovenia’s and Austria’s brand equity dimensions exist between the German and Croatian
respondents. However, in Slovenia’s investigation five constraints were misspecified; one
of them relates to the non-invariance of the factor loadings between Germans and
Croatians, and four to the non-invariance of the variables intercept. Further, in testing
the latent mean structure for Austria as a tourism destination, seven constraints were
misspecified, two of which were due to non-invariant factor loadings and five to the non-
invariance of a variable intercept. Further, when testing the latent mean structure for
Germans, nine, and for Croatians, seven constraints were misspecified. These mean
differences suggest varying perceptions about CBBE variables for a particular country
between potential groups of tourists.

18 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XI, No. 1, 2014


Conclusion
Despite the tremendous interest in evaluating a tourism destination from the potential
tourist’s point of view, little attention has been paid to whether a tourist’s perceptions of
tourism destinations can be meaningfully compared across different cultures. Today’s
changing conditions in the international tourism market are forcing tourism destinations
to compete in the battle to win more tourists. Therefore, they are making enormous efforts
to develop effective tourism destination marketing strategies in target markets. Valuable
advice and suggestions for destination marketing strategies emerge from previous tourism
destination investigations. Before gaining from these results, the question of whether
these results can be meaningfully compared between different cultures should be answered.
In this paper the proposed cross-cultural model of the CBBETD includes those
dimensions’ variables that are commonly shared between cultures. The authors’ investigation
of the measurement invariance of the CBBETD concept aimed to develop a cross-cultural
measure of the CBBETD which can be meaningfully used in different cultures. The analyses
involved three different levels (configural, metric and scalar) of measurement invariance.
The results for the different levels indicate that the conditions for configural and
metric invariance are fully satisfied (Table 5). Therefore, the relationships among model
dimensions were invariant between the Germans and Croatians. Contrary to the invariant
relationship between dimension constructs, the mean scores on the CBBETD dimension
can differ. During the analysis, the authors show that partial scalar invariance for the
CBBETD can also be confirmed. These findings imply that variations in opinions about
the CBBETD dimensions’ variables for one investigated country (in this case Slovenia or
Austria) exist among different cultures (in this case Germans and Croatians). This
conclusion was expected because the possibility exists that different groups of tourists
share different perceptions about some dimensions’ variables of one tourism destination.
The investigations of two competitive tourism destinations (Slovenia and Austria)
from the perspectives of two culturally different groups of respondents (Germans and
Croatians) give us a good basis for investigating the proposed model. Sample comparability
as a necessary step in cross-national consumer behavior studies was satisfied with
representative samples in all four investigated cases. The last step in the analysis involved

Table 5: Measurement Invariance Tests in the Cross-Cultural Model


of CBBE of a Tourism Destination
Configural Invariance
Measurement Model (CFA) SLOG Full SLOC Full AUSG Full AUSC Full
Metric Invariance
Measurement Model (CFA) SLO Full AUS Full G Full C Full
Scalar Invariance
Measurement Model (CFA) SLO Partial AUS Partial G Partial C Partial
Note: CFA – Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Cross-Cultural Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity for a Tourism Destination 19


employing the cross-cultural model that combined all four samples. The results of the
cross-cultural CBBETD model imply that the model is robust and cross-culturally
comparable because neither the selected tourism destination nor potential tourists’
evaluation has an impact on the dimensions of the CBBETD construct proposed here.
These relationships are clearly evident in Figure 1. The fit indexes for the cross-cultural
model of the CBBETD indicate that the model is acceptable according to all investigating
indexes (except for the measure of the  2-statistic) (see the note in Figure 1).

Figure 1: Cross-Cultural Model of CBBETD

Aw1

AW
Aw2 ( )

Im1
TE G
( )
Im2
( )

Im3 ( ) IM
( )
( )
Im4
( )
Q1 ( )

Q2
(
(
)
)
Q TD AUS
( )
Q3
( )
( )
Q4

Lo1

LO
Lo2 ( )

( )

Lo3
( )

Lo4

Note: TE – Tourist evaluations, country sample (G – Germans); TD – Tourism destination (AUS – Austria)
For variables see Table 1. Parameters in brackets sig. < 0.05. Fit statistics for model:  2 = 611.4
(df = 93), Probability value for  2-statistic is 0.00000; NFI = 0.90; NNFI = 0.90; CFI = 0.92;
IFI = 0.92; MFI = 0.91; GFI = 0.95; AGFI = 0.93; SRMR = 0.07; RMSEA = 0.05.

20 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XI, No. 1, 2014


Limitations and Directions for Future Research: Although the results support the
proposed measurement instrument for evaluating a destination which can be meaningfully
compared across cultures, this study is not free of limitations. First, measures of the
CBBETD dimensions could be more refined and developed. Further studies should
increase the number of awareness variables and thereby improve the reliability test for the
awareness dimension. In the measurement instrument of the CBBETD, five awareness
variables were included. However, the cross-cultural model retained only two of them. The
possibility exists to include another emic item for the destination, Slovenia. But when the
model was run with the emic item the results remained the same. At the same time,
additional investigations are believed necessary in the area of separating the traditionally
investigated image concept into the proposed image and quality dimensions. Second, in
the investigation of the proposed model for two competitive destinations and from the
perspective of two culturally heterogeneous tourist groups, the authors proposed a cross-
cultural measure of the CBBETD. However, to improve its generalizability, additional
tourism destinations as well as target groups of tourists should be investigated.
Accordingly, other researchers are recommended to investigate the different types of
tourism destinations, including from the perspective of even more heterogeneous groups
of tourists, with the aim of further validating the cross-cultural CBBETD model. Finally,
the proposed cross-cultural model of the CBBETD could even be extended to a cross-
cultural index (Yoo and Donthu, 2001) of the CBBETD. As far as the authors confirmed
the configural and metric invariance of the proposed dimensions’ variables, a cross-
cultural index for evaluating a tourism destination can be meaningfully calculated.
However, although an index could be an important indicator of a destination’s evaluation
from the perspective of investigated groups of tourists, a higher number of the index does
not necessarily mean a higher absolute number for destination visitations. The latter
should be interpreted along with other important indicators that could influence a
tourist’s decision and lead them to actually visit a tourism destination. 

References
1. Aaker D A (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, The
Free Press, New York.
2. Aaker D A (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York.
3. Aaker D A and Keller K L (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 27-41.
4. Aaker D A, Kumar V and Day G S (2004), Marketing Research, John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
5. Agarwal M K and Rao V R (1996), “An Empirical Comparison of Consumer-Based
Measures of Brand Equity”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 237-247.
6. Ahmed Z U (1991) “The Influence of the Components of a State’s Tourist Image on
Product Positioning Strategy”, Tourism Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 331-340.

Cross-Cultural Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity for a Tourism Destination 21


7. Anderson J C and Gerbing D W (1988), “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice:
A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103,
No. 3, pp. 411-423.
8. Anderson J C and Gerbing D W (1991), “Predicating the Performance of Measures
in a Confirmatory Factor Analysis with a Pretest Assessment of Their Substantive
Validities”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, No. 5, pp. 732-740.
9. Antoncic B and Hisrich R D (2001), “Intrapreneurship: Construct Refinement and
Cross-Cultural Validation”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 495-527.
10. Baker D A and Crompton J L (2000), “Quality, Satisfaction and Behavioral
Intentions”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 785-804.
11. Baldinger A L and Rubinson J (1996), “Brand Loyalty: The Link Between Attitude
and Behaviour”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 22-34.
12. Baloglu S (2001), “Image Variations of Turkey by Familiarity Index: Informational and
Experiential Dimensions”, Tourism Management, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 127-133.
13. Baloglu S and Mangaloglu M (2001), “Tourism Destination Images of Turkey, Egypt,
Greece, and Italy as Perceived by US-Based Tour Operators and Travel Agents”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 1-9.
14. Baloglu S and McCleary K W (1999a), “A Model of Destination Image Formation”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 868-897.
15. Baloglu S and McCleary K W (1999b), “US International Pleasure Travelers’ Images
of Four Mediterranean Destinations: A Comparison of Visitors and Nonvisitors”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 144-152.
16. Barwise P (1993), “Introduction to the Special Issue on Brand Equity”, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 3-8.
17. Bentler P M (1990), “Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 107, No. 2, pp. 238-246.
18. Bentler P M and Bonett D G (1980), “Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the
Analysis of Covariance Structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, No. 3, pp. 588-606.
19. Bigne J E, Sancez M I and Sanchez J (2001), “Tourism Image, Evaluation Variables and
After Purchase Behaviour: Inter-Relationship”, Tourism Management, Vol. 22, No. 6,
pp. 607-616.
20. Boo S, Busser J and Baloglu S (2009), “A Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity and
Its Application to Multiple Destinations”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30, pp. 219-231.
21. Brislin R W (1976), “Comparative Research Methodology: Cross-Cultural Studies”,
International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 215-229.

22 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XI, No. 1, 2014


22. Byrne B M (1994), Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic
Concepts, Applications and Programming, Sage Publication, London.
23. Byrne B M, Shavelson R J and Muthen B (1989), “Testing for the Equivalence of
Factor Covariance and Mean Structures: The Issues of Partial Measurement
Invariance”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp. 456-466.
24. Cai L A (2002), “Cooperative Branding for Rural Destination”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 720-742.
25. Cheung G W and Rensvold R B (2002), “Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for
Testing Measurement Invariance”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 9, No. 2,
pp. 233-255.
26. Churchill Gilbert A Jr (1979), “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of
Marketing Constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 64-73.
27. Coenders G, Casas F, Figuer C and Gonzalez M (2003), “Relationship Between
Parents’ and Children’s Values and Children’s Overall Life Satisfaction: A
Comparison Across Countries”, in Proceedings of 5th Conference of the International
Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt
am Main.
28. Craig S S and Douglas S P (2001), “Conducting International Marketing Research in
the Twenty-First Century”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 80-90.
29. Crompton J L (1979), “An Assessment of the Image of Mexico Vacation Destination
and the Influence of Geographical Location Upon the Image”, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 18-23.
30. Dawar N and Parker P (1994), “Marketing Universals: Consumers’ Use of Brand
Name, Price, Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product
Quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 81-95.
31. De Chernatony L and Dall’Olmo Riley F (1999), “Experts’ Views About Defining
Service Brands and the Principles of Services Branding”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 181-192.
32. De Chernatony L and McDonald M (2001), Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer,
Service and Industrial Markets, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
33. Dosen D O, Vranesevic T and Prebezac D (1998), “The Importance of Branding in
the Development of Marketing Strategy of Croatia as Tourist Destination”, Acta
Turistica, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 110-127.
34. Dowling G (2002), Creating Corporate Reputations: Identity, Image and Performance,
University Press, Oxford.
35. Drasgow F and Kanfer R (1985), “Equivalence of Psychological Measurement in
Heterogeneous Populations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 662-680.

Cross-Cultural Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity for a Tourism Destination 23


36. Durvasula S, Andrews J C, Lysonski S and Netemeyer R G (1993), “Assessing the
Cross-National Applicability of Consumer Behavior Models: A Model of Attitude
Toward Advertising in General”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, No. 4,
pp. 626-636.
37. Echtner C M and Ritchie J R B (1993), “The Measurement of Destination Image: An
Empirical Assessment”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 3-13.
38. Erdem T and Swait J (1998), “Brand Equity as a Signaling Phenomenon”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 131-157.
39. Faircloth J B, Capella L M and Alford B L (2001), “The Effect of Brand Attitude and
Brand Image on Brand Equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 61-75.
40. Fakeye P C and Crompton J L (1991), “Image Differences Between Prospective, First-
Time, and Repeat Visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley”, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 10-16.
41. Gallarza M G, Gil S I and Calderon G H (2002), “Destination Image: Towards a
Conceptual Framework”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 56-78.
42. Gartner W C (1986), “Temporal Influences on Image Change”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 635-644.
43. Gartner W C (1989), “Tourism Image: Attribute Measurement of State Tourism
Product Using Multidimensional Scaling Techniques”, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 16-20.
44. Gartner W C (1993), “Image Formation Process”, in M Uysal and D R Fesenmaier
(Eds.), Communication and Channel Systems in Tourism Marketing, pp. 191-215, The
Haworth Press, New York.
45. Goodall B (1993), “How Tourists Choose Their Holidays: An Analytical Framework”,
in B Goodal and G Ashworth (Eds.), Marketing in the Tourism Industry: The Promotion
of Destination Regions, pp. 1-17, Routledge, London.
46. Gregory J R and Wiechmann J G (1999), Marketing Corporate Image: The Company as
your Number One Product, NTC Business Books, Chicago.
47. Gunn C (1972), “Vacationscape”, Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas,
Austin.
48. Hair J F, Anderson R E, Tatham R L and Black W C (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice-Hall International, London.
49. Hu L and Bentler P M (1999), “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance
Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives”, Structural
Equation Modeling, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-55.

24 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XI, No. 1, 2014


50. Hu Y and Ritchie J R B (1993), “Measuring Destination Attractiveness:
A Contextual Approach”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 25-34.
51. Hui C H and Triandis H C (1985), “Measurement in Cross-cultural Psychology: A
Review and Comparison of Strategies”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 16,
No. 2, pp. 131-152.
52. Hunt J D (1975), “Image as a Factor in Tourism Development”, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 1-7.
53. Ind N (1997), The Corporate Brand, New York University Press, New York.
54. Kamakura W A and Russell G J (1993), “Measuring Brand Value with Scanner Data”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 9-22.
55. Keller K L (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based
Brand Equity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.
56. Keller K L (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand
Equity, Prentice-Hall International, London.
57. Konecnik M (2004), “Evaluating Slovenia’s Image as a Tourism Destination: Self-
Analysis Process Toward Building a Destination Brand”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 307-316.
58. Konecnik M (2005), Customer-Based Brand Equity for Tourism Destination:
Conceptual Model and its Empirical Verification, Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of
Economics, Ljubljana.
59. Konecnik M (2006), “Croatian-Based Brand Equity for Slovenia as a Tourism
Destination”, Economic and Business Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 83-108.
60. Konecnik M and Gartner W C (2007), “Customer-Based Brand Equity for a
Destination”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 400-421.
61. Konecnik M and Ruzzier M (2006), “The Influence of Previous Visitation on
Customer’s Evaluation of a Tourism Destination”, Managing Global Transitions, Vol. 4,
No. 2, pp. 145-165.
62. Konecnik Ruzzier M (2010), Destination Branding: Theory and Research, Lambert
Academic Publishing, Saarbrûcken.
63. Konecnik Ruzzier Maja and Ruzzier Mitja (2008), “The Customer’s Perspective on the
Tourism Destination Brand: A Structural Equation Modeling Study”, Transformations
in Business and Economics, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 169-184.
64. Low G S and Lamb C J Jr. (2000), “The Measurement and Dimensionality of Brand
Associations”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 350-368.

Cross-Cultural Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity for a Tourism Destination 25


65. Mackay M M (2001), “Evaluation of Brand Equity Measures: Further Empirical
Results”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 38-51.
66. Marsh H W (1994), “Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models of Factorial Invariance:
A Multifaceted Approach”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 5-34.
67. Meredith W (1993), “Measurement Invariance, Factor Analysis and Factorial
Invariance”, Psychometrica, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 525-543.
68. Milman A and Pizam A (1995), “The Role of Awareness and Familiarity with a
Destination: The Central Florida Case”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 33, No. 3,
pp. 21-27.
69. Morgan N and Pritchard A (2002), “Contextualizing Destination Branding”, in N
Morgan, A Pritchard and R Pride (Eds.), Destination Branding: Creating the Unique
Destination Proposition, pp. 10-41, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
70. Morgan N, Pritchard A and Piggot R (2002), “New Zealand, 100% Pure. The Creation
of a Powerful Niche Destination Brand”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9,
No. 4/5, pp. 335-354.
71. Mullen M R (1995), “Diagnosing Measurement Equivalence in Cross-national
Research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 573-596.
72. Na W B, Marshall R and Keller K L (1999), “Measuring Brand Power: Validating a
Model for Optimizing Brand Equity”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8,
No. 3, pp. 170-184.
73. Olins W (2002), “Branding the Nation – The Historical Context”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 9, No. 4-5, pp. 241-248.
74. Oliver R L (1996), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill
Company, Boston.
75. Oppermann M (2000), “Tourism Destination Loyalty”, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 39, pp. 78-84.
76. Papadopoulus N and Heslop L (2002), “Country Equity and Country Branding:
Problems and Prospects”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, Nos. 4-5, pp. 294-314.
77. Park C S and Srinivasan V (1994), “A Survey-Based Method for Measuring and
Understanding Brand Equity and its Extendibility”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 271-288.
78. Pike S (2002), “Destination Image Analysis – A Review of 142 Papers from 1973 to
2000”, Tourism Management, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 541-549.
79. Pike S (2007), “Consumer-Based Brand Equity for Destinations: Practical DMO
Performance Measures”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 22, No. 1,
pp. 51-61.

26 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XI, No. 1, 2014


80. Pike S (2009), “Destination Brand Positions of a Competitive Set of Near-Home
Destinations”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 857-866.
81. Phelps A (1986), “Holiday Destination Image: The Problem of Assessment”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 168-180.
82. Pritchard A and Morgan N (1998), “Mood Marketing – The New Destination
Branding Strategy: A Case of Wales Brand”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 4,
No. 3, pp. 215-229.
83. Raju N S, Laffitte L J and Byrne B M (2002), “Measurement Equivalence:
A Comparison of Methods Based on Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Item
Response Theory”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 517-529.
84. Sekaran U (1983), “Methodological and Theoretical Issues and Advancement in
Cross-Cultural Research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2,
pp. 61-73.
85. Shah Alam S and Norjaya M Y (2010), “The Antecedents of Online Brand Trust:
Malaysian Evidence”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 11, No. 2,
pp. 210-226.
86. Singh Jagdip (1995), “Measurement Issues in Cross-National Research”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 597-619.
87. Spector P E (1994), “Summated Rating Scale Construction: An Introduction”, in M
S Lewis-Beck (Ed.), Basic Measurement, pp. 229-300, Sage Publication, London.
88. Steenkamp J B E M and Baumgartner H (1998), “Assessing Measurement Invariance
in Cross-National Consumer Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25,
pp. 78-90.
89. Tasci A D A, Gartner W C and Cavusgil S T (2007), “Measurement of Destination
Brand Bias Using a Quasi Experimental Design”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28,
pp. 1529-1540.
90. Um S and Crompton J L (1990), “Attitude Determinants in Tourism Destination
Choice”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 432-448.
91. Woodside A G and Lysonski S (1989), “A General Model of Travel Destination
Choice”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 8-14.
92. Woodside A G and Sherrell D (1977), “Travel Evoked, Inept, and Inert Sets of
Vacation Destinations”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 2-6.
93. Yoo B and Donthu N (2001), “Developing and Validating a Multidimensional
Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52, Vol. 1,
pp. 1-14.

Cross-Cultural Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity for a Tourism Destination 27


94. Yoo B and Donthu N (2002), “Testing Cross-Cultural Invariance of the Brand Equity
Creation Process”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 380-398.
95. Zabkar V (2000), “Some Methodological Issues with Structural Equation Model
Application in Relationship Quality Context”, in A Ferligoj and A Mrvar (Eds.), New
Approaches in Applied Statistics, pp. 211-226, FDV, Ljubljana.

Appendix
Statistically Significant Differences for Multiple Population Analysis in Testing
for the Invariance of the Latent Mean Structure in the Measurement
Model of the CBBETD
Univariate Test Statistic Cumulative Multivariate Statistic
Slovenia Aw2, AW* ( 2 = 17.39; prob. = 0.000) Lo3, LO* ( 2 = 5.56; prob. = 0.018)
Lo3, LO* ( = 6.93; prob. = 0.008)
2
Aw1, V999** ( 2 = 58.26; prob. = 0.000)
Aw1, V999** ( 2 = 58.26; prob. = 0.000) Im1, V999** ( 2 = 31.27; prob. = 0.000)
Aw2, V999** ( = 58.26; prob. = 0.000)
2
Im3, V999** ( 2 = 34.70; prob. = 0.000)
Im1, V999** ( = 13.96; prob. = 0.000)
2
Lo1, V999** ( 2 = 19.70; prob. = 0.000)
Im2, V999** ( = 33.60; prob. = 0.000)
2

Im3, V999** ( 2 = 34.70; prob. = 0.000)


Im4, V999** ( 2 = 6.77; prob. = 0.009)
Lo1, V999** ( 2 = 19.70; prob. = 0.000)
Lo4, V999** ( 2 = 8.16; prob. = 0.004)

Austria Im2, IM* ( 2 = 5.78; prob. = 0.016) Q2, Q* ( 2 = 11.29; prob. = 0.001)
Q2, Q* ( = 11.29; prob. = 0.001)
2 Lo2, LO* ( 2 = 8.88; prob. = 0.003)
Q4, Q* ( = 8.42; prob. = 0.004)
2 Im3, V999**( 2 = 15.42; prob. = 0.000)
Lo2, LO* ( 2 = 3.99; prob. = 0.046) Im4, V999** ( 2 = 14.31; prob. = 0.000)
Im2, V999** ( 2 = 13.98; prob. = 0.000) Q4, V999** ( 2 = 4.64; prob. = 0.031)
Im3, V999** ( = 15.42; prob. = 0.000)
2 Lo1, V999** ( 2 = 4.90; prob. = 0.027)
Im4, V999** ( = 6.38; prob. = 0.012)
2 Lo2, V999**( 2 = 25.43; prob. = 0.000)
Q2, V999** ( 2 = 4.70; prob. = 0.030)
Q4, V999** ( 2 = 6.39; prob. = 0.012)
Lo2, V999** ( 2 = 25.43; prob. = 0.000)
Lo3, V999**( 2 = 4.11; prob. = 0.043)
Lo4, V999** ( 2 = 7.28; prob. = 0.007)

28 The IUP Journal of Brand Management, Vol. XI, No. 1, 2014


Appendix (Cont.)
Univariate Test Statistic Cumulative Multivariate Statistic

Germans Aw2, AW* ( 2 = 5.96; prob. = 0.015) Aw2, AW* ( 2 = 5.03; prob. = 0.025)
Im4, IM* ( = 11.37; prob. = 0.001)
2
Im4, IM* ( 2 = 4.82; prob. = 0.028)
Q2, Q* ( = 10.95; prob. = 0.001)
2
Q2, Q* ( 2 = 7.01; prob. = 0.008)
Q4, Q* ( 2 = 10.01; prob. = 0.002) Lo3, LO* ( 2 = 6.25; prob. = 0.012)
Lo3, LO* ( = 8.00; prob. = 0.005)
2
Aw2, V999** ( 2 = 25.98; prob. = 0.000)
Aw1, V999** ( = 25.98; prob. = 0.000)
2
Im1, V999** ( 2 = 28.49; prob. = 0.000)
Aw2, V999** ( = 25.98; prob. = 0.000)
2
Q3, V999** ( 2 = 4.16; prob. = 0.041)
Im1, V999** ( 2 = 28.49; prob. = 0.000) Q4, V999** ( 2 = 17.76; prob. = 0.000)
Im4, V999** ( = 17.27; prob. = 0.000)
2
Lo1, V999** ( 2 = 12.68; prob. = 0.000)
Q3, V999** ( = 6.06; prob. = 0.014)
2

Q4, V999** ( 2 = 17.76; prob. = 0.000)


Lo1, V999** ( 2 = 12.68; prob. = 0.000)
Lo4, V999** ( 2 = 4.77; prob. = 0.029)

Croatians Aw2, AW* ( 2 = 19.16; prob. = 0.000) Aw2, AW* ( 2 = 19.16; prob. = 0.000)
Im3, IM* ( = 4.40; prob. = 0.036)
2
Im2, IM* ( 2 = 4.76; prob. = 0.029)
Aw1, V999** ( = 13.09; prob. = 0.000)
2
Im3, IM* ( 2 = 4.40; prob. = 0.036)
Aw2, V999** ( 2 = 13.09; prob. = 0.000) Im4, V999** ( 2 = 4.14; prob. = 0.042)
Im3, V999** ( = 4.3; prob. = 0.038)
2
Q3, V999** ( 2 = 6.98; prob. = 0.008)
Q2, V999** ( = 4.36; prob. = 0.037)
2
Q4, V999** ( 2 = 7.92; prob. = 0.005)
Q3, V999** ( = 6.98; prob. = 0.008)
2
Lo2, V999** ( 2 = 4.50; prob. = 0.034)
Q4, V999** ( 2 = 4.56; prob. = 0.032)
Lo2, V999** ( 2 = 4.50; prob. = 0.034)
Lo4, V999**( 2 = 4.04; prob. = 0.044)

Note: * Noninvariance of factor loadings; and ** noninvariance of a variable intercept


Fit statistics for SLO:  2 = 663.8*(df=162);  2/df = 4.10; NFI = 0.88; NNFI = 0.89; CFI = 0.91;
IFI = 0.91; MFI = 0.77; GFI = 0.91; AGFI = 0.87; SRMR = 0.07; RMSEA = 0.06
Fit statistics for AUS:  2 = 488.5*(df=162);  2/df = 3.02; NFI = 0.89; NNFI = 0.91; CFI = 0.93;
IFI = 0.93; MFI = 0.84; GFI = 0.93; AGFI = 0.90; SRMR = 0.06; RMSEA = 0.05
Fit statistics for G:  2 = 476.3*(df=162);  2/df = 2.94; NFI = 0.91; NNFI = 0.93; CFI = 0.94;
IFI = 0.94; MFI = 0.84; GFI = 0.93; AGFI = 0.89; SRMR = 0.06; RMSEA = 0.05
Fit statistics for C:  2 = 599.1*(df=162);  2/df = 3.70; NFI = 0.87; NNFI = 0.88; CFI = 0.90;
IFI = 0.90; MFI = 0.77; GFI = 0.91; AGFI = 0.87; SRMR = 0.07; RMSEA = 0.06
Probability value for  2 statistic is 0.00000; and For variables see Table 1

Reference # 25J-2014-03-01-01

Cross-Cultural Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity for a Tourism Destination 29


Copyright of IUP Journal of Brand Management is the property of IUP Publications and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Você também pode gostar