Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
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
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
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).
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
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
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)
Reference # 25J-2014-03-01-01