Projected and Perceived Destination Brand Personalities

Abstract

A destination can seek to convey a certain brand personality through various branding strategies and advertising messages. However, consumers may interpret the communicated messages through the prism of their own perceptions and thus may respond differently to a brand message than was intended. This research attempted to understand the relationship between the perceived and projected destination brand personalities, using South Korea as a case in point. The projected destination personality was assessed through analyzing the contents of the official Korean tourism website, while the perceived destination personality was determined from a survey conducted among a sample of U.S. travelers. The findings revealed significant discrepancies between the two. This research established a methodological framework that could become a practical tool for tourism marketing organizations in their efforts to determine and eliminate potential destination personality incongruence.

Keywords

destination branding destination image destination personality projected and perceived tourism in South Korea

Introduction

As competition over global tourism markets intensifies, branding has become an important element of tourism management. Destination marketing organizations (DMOs) are increasingly seen to embrace branding initiatives in an effort to attract more visitors and investors to their destinations (Blain, Levy, and Ritchie 2005). In recent years, brand personality has emerged as a highly influential aspect of brand management, and marketers have become more aware of its strategic importance. Just as people are described in terms of their perceived personalities, brands can also be described in terms of perceived human characteristics, known as brand personality (Aaker 1997). Given that brand impression or evaluation is determined not only by functional facets of the brand but also by symbolic criteria (Sirgy 1982), the personality approach can be useful and is often necessary for marketers to develop a sustainable uniqueness in a marketplace (Sweeny and Brandon 2006). Research has provided empirical evidence that a well-established and well-communicated brand personality influences customer preference and usage (Sirgy 1982), determines product evaluations (Freling and Forbes 2005), evokes emotions in consumers (Biel 1993), and increases levels of loyalty to a brand (Fournier 1998).

Although brand personality for general consumer goods has been widely studied, there has been scant attention paid to destination brand personality in the travel and tourism literature. However, the personality traits that people associate with a brand can be transferred directly to their perceptions of a tourist destination (Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff 2007). For instance, Paris is considered to be romantic and sophisticated, while South Africa is described as rugged and tough. Therefore, concurrent to brand personality research, the tourism literature has increasingly acknowledged the importance of destination personality in relation to understanding the perceived image of a place and influencing subsequent tourist-related behavior. Destination personality can be viewed as a viable metaphor for understanding tourists’ perceptions of destinations and for creating a unique destination identity (Ekinci and Hosany 2006). Ekinci and Hosany (2006) have provided empirical evidence that destination brand personality plays a vital role in influencing travel destinations as well as destination image formation.

A destination can seek to convey a certain brand personality through its branding strategies and advertising messages. However, consumers may interpret the destination’s communicated messages through the prism of their own perceptions and thus may respond differently to a brand message than was intended. Prior branding research suggests that in order to build and maintain a brand–consumer relationship, it is imperative that brand image projection and consumer brand perception be aligned in harmony (e.g., Davies and Chun 2002; Hatch and Schultz 2003). For example, Nandan (2005) suggests that congruency between brand image perception and projection implies that a deeper understanding and agreement with the brand image will lead consumers to form a greater loyalty to the brand. Value for the destination can be created in the consumer’s mind only when he or she understands and appreciates the communicated brand images. It stands to reason that a tourism board should be seriously concerned about any gaps between projected and perceived brand images and these gaps should be rectified by brand management. Previous research tended to focus either on the perceptions of destination brand image from a consumer’s perspective or on the images projected from various media channels, including DMO websites. However, little effort has been made to examine projected and perceived images of a destination simultaneously.

If the projected and perceived brand image gap is to be understood, it needs to be measured. The present study attempted to fill a niche by investigating the brand personality communicated by a destination’s DMO and the brand personality perceived by consumers. Specifically, the objectives of this study are as follows: (1) to understand how a destination brand personality is projected through the use of narratives on an official tourism website; (2) to understand how consumers perceive a destination brand’s personality; (3) to identify possible discrepancies between the projected and the perceived destination brand personalities; and (4) to provide insights about how to effectively manage the divergence between projected and perceived brand personalities and integrate destination brand personality into strategic brand management. South Korea was used as a case in point for this research.

The example of South Korea is particularly interesting because South Korean tourism has not been able to attract the desired number of inbound tourists despite the country’s extensive marketing efforts and rich tourism resources (Korea Tourism Organization 2010). This failure to attract significant numbers of tourists could be partially attributed to a branding problem. The first official tourism brand slogan of South Korea, “Korea, Sparkling,” was launched in 2007. The Korea Tourism Organization (KTO) defines the underlying foundation of Korea’s tourism brand as “Emotional Dynamism,” which embodies the passion of Korea’s people as well as the country’s lively atmosphere and rich culture. More recently, the KTO announced “Korea, Be Inspired” as the new slogan to market South Korea overseas. This revamped slogan emphasizes the creativity and enthusiasm that South Korea would inspire in its foreign tourists. It is however not well understood whether this branding strategy resonates with South Korea’s targeted markets. Does the projected brand personality match the one perceived by its potential visitors? Does it have the potential to attract more tourists by building an emotional connection in tourists’ minds?

Literature Review

Destination Branding

Branding has been defined as a process used to develop distinctive brand identity that engages the hearts and minds of customers and separates similar products from those of competitors (Morgan and Prichard 2002). Branding is traditionally associated with consumer products; however, tourist destinations are increasingly adopting branding strategies to create and differentiate an identity that emphasizes the uniqueness of the destination (Blain, Levy, and Ritchie 2005; Hankinson 2001; Henderson 2000). As Cai (2002) suggests, only branded destinations are able to create a unique identity through relationship building and emotional appeal rather than differentiation on the basis of functional qualities. Hence, many tourism researchers and marketers have begun to view tourism destinations as brands and have applied the concepts of generic branding theories to destinations.

The most comprehensive and widely cited definition for destination branding to date has been proposed by Blain, Levy, and Ritchie (2005), who define destination branding as the set of marketing activities that (1) relates to the creation of a name, term, symbol, logo, or other graphic that differentiates a destination; (2) conveys the expectation of a travel experience that is uniquely associated with the destination; (3) connects the visitors emotionally; and (4) reduces the costs and efforts associated with information search and perceived risk.

Destination branding has been widely accepted as an integral part of the travelers’ decision-making process as well as travel behaviors and intentions. A strong and distinctive destination brand can influence prepurchase attitudes or perceptions as well as postpurchase evaluations. Since destination brand involves the perceptions about a place as reflected by the associations held in the tourist’s memory (Cai 2002), it facilitates destination marketing by providing potential tourists with pretrip information that allows them to familiarize themselves with a destination, differentiating that destination from its competitors and generating a set of expectations about the travel experience (Murphy, Moscardo, and Benckendorff 2007). Furthermore, a destination brand can help tourists reinforce or modify their perceptions of the destination after the trip (Ritchie and Ritchie 1998). Such perceptions in turn can influence consumers’ evaluations associated with satisfaction, loyalty, and subsequent behavioral intentions (Gallarza and Saura 2006).

Destination Brand Personality: Brand as a Symbol

Although many studies have been conducted about brand image and brand personality, there is still confusion about the terms. In fact, they have been used almost interchangeably in many studies, which have led to definitional inconsistencies (Hosany, Ekinci, and Uysal 2006). Therefore, it is necessary to define these two concepts and clarify their differences.

Researchers have suggested that brand image provides two different types of benefits to consumers: (1) functional (cognitive) and (2) symbolic (affective). Although functional benefits refer to the aggregated product function that reflects utilitarian or physical attributes, brands have a significance that goes beyond their functional benefits, including nonfunctional, symbolic qualities (Aaker 1996; Keller 1993). In a similar vein, destination image incorporates the cognitive components (beliefs and knowledge about the destination) and the affective component (individual’s feelings about the tourist destination). Hosany, Ekinci, and Uysal (2006) argue that brand image and personality are correlated concepts, but brand image is the more encapsulating concept, while brand personality is more closely related to affective image. In recent years, marketing research has shifted its interest toward the symbolic meaning consumers attribute to brands. Therefore, brand personality has received considerable attention since Aaker’s (1997) seminal paper, which proposed that brands can be perceived as having human personalities.

There are several reasons why consumers respond to symbolic meanings associated with brands. First, by continuing to use a brand, consumers are likely to build expectations about certain features, performance, and benefits of the brand. Beyond such expectations, consumers often associate brand identities with human personality attributes; these in turn create the symbolic nature of the brand. This process has been called animism. Animism suggests that there exists a need by people to anthropomorphize objects to facilitate interactions with the nonmaterial world (Fournier 1998; Gilmore 1919). Consumers assign human personality traits to inanimate objects in thinking about brands as if they are human characters (Aaker 1997; Fournier 1998) and develop relationships with these brands. These human personality traits provide symbolic meaning for the consumer who uses the personality as a cue and exploits the positive aspects to present a given image. Accordingly, a brand with the right personality can result in consumers feeling that the brand is relevant and that they should have positive attitudes toward a brand and remain loyal to it (Fournier 1998).

Second, the idea that brand personality focuses on symbolic benefits also was supported by the Self-Congruity Theory (Aaker 1997; Sirgy 1982). The symbolic meaning associated with the personality of a brand enables consumers to portray the “self” that they want to express to others (Grubb and Hupp 1968; Solomon 1983). Some earlier studies in psychology have suggested that since similarity is considered to be emotionally rewarding, in interpersonal interactions people tend to be attracted to others with similar personalities (Moon 2002). In addition, King (1970) argues that “people choose their brands the same way they choose their friends, in addition to skills and physical characteristics; they simply like them as a person.” Thus, brand personality can increase brand attachment, in much the same way as people relate to and interact with each other.

Brand Personality Measurement and Its Dimensions

The instrument used most often to measure brand personality, the Brand Personality Scale (BPS), was developed by Aaker (1997). Through surveys, she found five dimensions of brand personality: Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness. However, researchers have questioned whether the BPS is valid, reliable, and generalizable enough to be useful across various product categories and consumer segments. For instance, Aaker and her colleagues (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, and Garolera 2001) found that some brand personality traits were common across cultures and others were culturally specific. For example, their study, conducted in Japan, found that Japanese participants identify with “peacefulness” as a brand personality but not “ruggedness,” which is perceived by Americans. Although some studies on the application of Aaker’s (1997) BPS reveal the emergence of culturally specific, as well as brand-specific, dimensions, the BPS remains the most stable, reliable, and comprehensive measure of brand personality (Ekinci and Hosany 2006).

Empirical Evidence of Destination Brand Personality’s Influence on Destination Branding

From a consumer’s perspective, one of the advantages of brand personality is based on a brand’s distinctive personality which gives consumers the ability to differentiate between them. A distinctive brand personality allows consumers to create a set of unique and favorable associations in their minds (Ekinci and Hosany 2006; Keller 1993). Moreover, a well-established brand personality can influence customer preference and choice (Sirgy 1982), evoke emotions in consumers (Biel 1993), increase levels of trust and loyalty with the brand (Fournier 1998), influence perceived quality of the brand (Ramaseshan and Tsao 2007), and encourage active processing on the part of the consumer (Biel 1993).

From a managerial perspective, by incorporating a brand with a strong personality, brand strategists can differentiate brands with similar products. In a competitive marketplace with many similar products or services, an effective solution for establishing distinctiveness of a brand can be through creation of brand personality. In that sense, destination brand personality serves as an important point of differentiation and creates sustainable competitive advantage (Aaker 1996) and thus can be considered as a key component of effective branding when it comes to positioning destinations with nonfunctional values.

Although relatively little research has been done on destination brand personality, this has recently begun to change. Adapting Aaker’s research (1997), Hosany and Ekinci (2006) view destination personality as a multidimensional construct and can be defined as the set of human characteristics associated to a tourism destination and examine the role of destination brand personality in perceptions and intentions to recommend a particular destination. Their results indicated that destination personality is positively associated with perceived destination image and intention to recommend. More recently, Murphy et al. (2007) investigated the brand personalities of two tourist destinations in Australia in order to determine whether respondents could differentiate between the two destinations on the basis of brand personality perceptions alone. As expected, visitors were able to differentiate between destinations according to their brand personality perceptions, and this study confirmed that brand personality can be strategically used to achieve brand differentiation. Murphy and her colleagues (2007) further explored the relationships among tourist needs, destination brand personality, self-congruity, and behavioral intentions as well as overall satisfaction. Their findings confirmed that tourists’ motivations and perceptions of their destination influence self-congruity and, in turn, their intentions and evaluations.

Projected and Perceived Destination Brand Personalities

In general, the destination image can be analyzed from two perspectives: first, the projected image formed through promotional activities of the DMOs and those in the tourist industry as well as news and information about the destination from multiple sources; and second, the perceived image by the tourists, generated from the information received through indirect sources and his or her direct experience at the destination (Govers, Go, and Kumar 2007). Although destination perceptions held by travelers have been well studied, projected images created by the DMOs have received relatively little attention.

Recently, an empirical application of projected destination image research has been presented by Govers and Go (2005), in which they identified the projected destination image of Dubai in an online environment through analyzing both photographic imagery and narratives. By performing content analysis of Dubai-based tourism company websites, the researchers were able to capture how the destination image dimensions were distributed. Unfortunately, this study only focused on the projection of destination images on the websites rather than incorporating consumer-based perceptions of the destination image. Moreover, the research focused on brand image, not brand personality.

Methodology

A Three-Step Approach

This study adopted a three-stage approach. First, the textual information from the Korean official tourism website was analyzed to identify some dominant destination personality dimensions. The current study conducted content analysis using a software program called CATPAC to analyze the official tourism website, www.visitkorea.or.kr, to gain insights into South Korea’s projected personality. The issues of reliability and validity in content analysis are partly addressed by the use of a software program that helps in analysis of textual data (Govers, Go, and Kumar 2007). Only the official tourism website was considered because the objective of the study was to identify the destination personality directly from the Korean government. Given the fact DMOs tend to have websites with strategic branding undertones (Choi, Lehto, and Morrison 2007), the web-based textual information disseminated by the KTO can represent the intended branding messages.

As a first step, the full text of the KTO website was copied and pasted into a separate Word document. Although Korean tourism itself mainly targets Asian countries, the English KTO website, which was considered in the current study, seems to target any English-speaking countries, including America. Most pages on the KTO website were included except for customer-generated pages, such as press sections, community, or FAQ. The unit of the content analysis was the home page (front page), which usually serves as the front door of an entire website and the following two subpages. Second, “stop words” such as articles and prepositions, which occur in text but have no underlying meaning, were identified and dropped from the analysis. Also, words like “sincere” and “sincerity” were converted into a single form. Categorization of 100 frequently appearing words was carried out on the basis of a synonym list created through the use of Encyclopaedia Britannica’s thesaurus function (www.britannica.com). To increase reliability, three researchers independently checked through all the categorization and coding processes, and the level of agreement of the final list was 97 percent (intercoder reliability = .97).

Next, a survey was conducted to determine U.S. travelers’ perceptions about the personality of South Korea as a tourist destination. The survey questionnaire incorporated four sections. In the first section, respondents were asked to provide the first three words that come to mind when they think of South Korea as a tourist destination in terms of general characteristics and the atmosphere or mood. In a second component, respondents were asked to indicate on a 1 to 5 scale (1 = perfectly descriptive, 5 = not at all descriptive) how strongly they associated South Korea as a travel destination with the five brand personality dimensions previously mentioned and 42 underlying personality traits identified in Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale (BPS), which is the most widely used framework for brand personality studies (Hosany, Ekinci, and Uysal 2006).

Aaker’s (1997) five dimensions of brand personality: Sincerity (domestic, honest, genuine, cheerful), Excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative, up-to-date), Competence (reliable, responsible, dependable, efficient), Sophistication (glamorous, charming, romantic), and Ruggedness (tough, strong, outdoorsy, rugged). Using a random split half sample approach, half of the sample was used to conduct an exploratory factor analysis to determine whether Korea’s destination brand personality structure was consistent with Aaker’s five-dimension model. The remainder of the sample was used for performing a confirmatory factor analysis to further validate the personality structure uncovered by this research.

At the third stage, the responses from the participants were analyzed in conjunction with the textual data taken from the official Korean websites to understand the convergence or divergence of South Korea’s destination personality from the perspective of U.S. potential travelers. The difference between projected and perceived personalities was examined by comparing the dominant personality domains identified from website content analysis and the consumer survey. Projected destination personality items were ranked in terms of frequencies in content to determine which items served as core promotional messages on the KTO website. The dominant perceived personality aspects were also identified through factor analysis and mean value analysis. The gap between projected and perceived destination personalities was analyzed to identify strengths and weaknesses of South Korea’s tourism-related personality dimensions.

Survey Data Collection

Data were collected via two different formats, an online survey and an intercept method. The first set of data was gathered from a web-based survey in the spring of 2009, which was completed with the assistance of the alumni association of a major Midwestern university in the United States. The Alumni Association randomly selected 1,000 people from their alumni database and solicited their participation in the online survey. The second set of data was collected using an intercept technique in 2009 at popular shopping malls and campuses located in a Midwestern city in the United States. After eliminating cases with excessive amounts of missing data, a total of 480 usable questionnaires were collected for the study (i.e., 122 from offline and 358 from online survey). Response rates of 35.8 percent for the online survey and 78.2 percent for offline were obtained.

To ensure compatibility between the two samples of participants, the samples were compared based on the available demographic variables. A simple t-test on age, and a chi-square analysis of the gender, age, income, and education categories uncovered no statistically significant differences between the samples (gender: chi square = .446, p > .05; education: t = .005, p > .05; age: t = .335, p > .05; income: t = .356, p > .05). An independent sample t-test was also performed to examine differences in the means associated with the personality items in each sample. The result revealed that many of the personality items did not differ significantly between the two samples, which indicated that the data could be pooled.

Results

Projected Destination Personality

South Korea’s intended brand messages were analyzed by examining its tourism brand concept specified on the KTO website. The KTO indicates that Korea’s tourism slogan “Korea, Sparkling” symbolizes the passion of Korea’s people as well as the country’s lively atmosphere and rich culture (KTO 2011). Consistent with the tourism board’s slogan that aspires to associate a message of vitality and enthusiasm with the country, the KTO defines South Korea’s brand values with (1) liveliness, (2) passion, (3) progression, (4) creativity, and (5) friendliness (KTO 2011).

CATPAC then analyzed the text on the KTO website and produced a word frequency count for the most commonly used words. There were initially a total of 27,365 words with a total of 79,271 lines. After the data screening process using a default function, CATPAC revealed 100 relevant keywords that appeared frequently in the data set as those most relevant to the brand personality analysis. In order to identify the associations between the keywords and the destination personality dimensions, the keywords produced that shared similar meanings were grouped similarly with Aaker’s (1997) brand personality dimensions and traits. Table 1 illustrates the keywords that are related to the BPS dimensions.

Table 1.

Keywords Linked to Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale

Aaker’s Brand Personality Scale	Related Personality Items Represented on the KTO Website
Competence	Developed, technology, leading, safe
Sincerity	Family, friendly, healthy, real, original, genuine, kind
Excitement	Young, unique, exciting, sparkling, best, good, great, fresh, special, modern, interesting, fun, live, vibrant, popular, enjoy, cool
Sophistication	Glamorous, sophisticated
Ruggedness	Outdoor, Western, wild

From the comparison, 4 identified words from the KTO website were associated with “competence,” 7 words with “sincerity,” 16 words with “excitement,” 2 words with “sophistication,” and 3 words with “ruggedness.” More specifically, “excitement” was associated with keywords such as young and modern. The dimension of sincerity was linked to friendly, family, healthy, genuine, and real. Competence corresponded with the words developed and technological. Words such as outdoor and western were linked to the dimension of ruggedness. The sophistication dimension included the concept of glamorous. Apparently, the KTO website is attempting to communicate the most diverse aspects of destination personalities, excitement being the most prevalent brand personality trait (Table 1).

Specific Personality Dimension Representations

The results of content analysis suggest that the most important concept in the web text was close to the excitement personality dimension, which accounted for about 34 percent of the total words (Table 2). More specifically, excitement, the most dominant destination personality trait found on the KTO website, is associated with a wide range of keywords such as young, unique, sparkling, special, interesting, fun, vibrant, popular, and modern. The words associated with the excitement dimension are the most diverse in terms of both types and intensities. It appears that the KTO concentrated its efforts on projecting exciting and vibrant personalities, as seen in the brand slogan “Korea, Sparkling,” to its core brand values.

Table 2.

Textual Information on the Korea Tourism Organization Website

Rank	Dimension	Examples	f	%
1	Excitement	• Every city in the world has its own unique atmosphere. The ever-changing Seoul is one of the busiest cities in the world.	9333	33.9
		• We’ve designed a special themed tour, so that you can experience the energy of this lively, bustling city. Are you ready? Let’s go!
		• You will really experience the energy of Seoul’s youth
		• The festivals of Korea are as vibrant and passionate as its people.
2	Sincerity	• They already have a good impression of Korea because of the friendly local people.	3246	21.3
		• It also provides foreign guests with the opportunity to understand and experience Korea’s family-oriented traditional culture and the Korean people’s respect for life that has been deeply embedded in Korean tradition and customs.
3	Competence	• It is expected to assist in promoting Korea as an ideal and safe destination during this time of war with Iraq and the SARS outbreak.	1750	10.2
		• Korea is leading global trends in the high-tech industry, especially in information technology, mobile phones, and LCD monitors.
4	Ruggedness	• A young motorbike enthusiast in his twenties, Mathieu, summed up this outdoor recreation experience as simply fantastic. Rafting and kayaking programs like this aren’t easy to find, and they actually offer a different type of thrill and fun than the usual snowboarding, inline skating, or water skiing.	730	3.5
5	Sophistication	• The hotels and fancy buildings give it a glamorous look and there are many specialty restaurants that serve global cuisine.	620	2.3

The second most frequently mentioned personality dimension from the KTO website was sincerity, with which the KTO frequently associates attributes such as family-oriented and friendly. Family was found to be most highly ranked among the keywords in the sincerity dimension. Korean society has always been family oriented. Family-oriented holidays, such as Chuseok, and a family-centered culture were also frequently described on the website. Obviously, the KTO website actively promotes family-oriented events and festivals to potential travelers. The second most frequently used word in the sincerity dimension was friendly. The KTO describes Korean people as warm-hearted, kind, and friendly and emphasizes the destination’s welcoming environment for foreign visitors.

The third dominant dimension in the KTO website was found to be competence. In fact, South Korea has experienced extensive growth in science and technology, especially in the area of information technology (IT), mobile phones, and automobiles. The KTO website seemed to offer an abundance of information regarding those characteristics. Moreover, infrastructure, such as hotels, airports, and various modes of transportation, was frequently mentioned. These findings indicate that the KTO is striving to convey the message that South Korea has developed technologies that will improve the travel and tourism industries.

While the destination is shown as a place rich in excitement, sincerity, and competence, aspects like ruggedness and sophistication are lacking and account for only 5.8 percent of the total words. In particular, since the keywords associated with sophistication were the lowest in terms of type and intensity, one can infer that the KTO website is displaying the most limited aspects of sophistication.

Sample Profile

More than half of the respondents were male (61.5 percent), while 38.5 percent were female. Age ranges varied with the majority of participants in the 45 to 54 (27.9 percent) span closely followed by 55 to 64 (18.7 percent). The majority of respondents were highly educated; approximately 85 percent had at least a bachelor’s degree. Half of the respondents (54.6 percent) had annual household incomes of more than $100,000. The sample was dominated by Caucasians, who accounted for 92.6 percent of the sample. When compared to the general American demographic profile, the majority of the respondents were in older age brackets, were more highly educated, and belonged to higher income brackets. In all, the demographic profile of respondents in the study was found to be consistent with the profile of international travelers in previous studies (Baloglu and McCleary 1999). Moreover, 65.2 percent of the respondents indicated that they were “highly likely” or “likely” to visit South Korea in the future. Based on their demographic characteristics and their stated intentions to travel to South Korea, the participants in this study appeared to be a fitting target market population for South Korean tourism.

Perceived Destination Personality

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with principle components extraction and varimax rotation was undertaken on the random split-half sample to identify underlying dimensions associated with South Korea’s personality attributes perceived by Americans. After significantly low-loading and cross-loading items were dropped, the factor analysis revealed a seven-factor solution, as shown in Table 3. The factors accounted for 64.3 percent of the total variance in personality perceptions and were labeled as follows: Excitement, Competence, Sincerity, Sophistication, Ruggedness, Uniqueness, and Family orientation. The reliability for each personality dimension, as assessed by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, was greater than 0.7, meeting the Nunnally’s criterion (1978). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the remaining half sample validated this factor structure extracted by EFA. Confirming the seven-factor structure, the model fit was good—χ² = 1875.203, df = 681, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .919, normed fit index (NFI) = .979, comparative fit index (CFI) =.973, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .075—and all factor loadings were significant (p < .001).

Table 3.

Principal Components Analysis of Brand Personality Items

	Factor Loadings
Personality Items	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Factor 1: Excitement	.738
Trendy	.727
Exciting	.721
Cool	.720
Young	.714
Spirited	.704
Contemporary	.697
Up-to-date	.675
Imaginative	.645
Daring	.499
Independent
Factor 2: Competence		.806
Corporate		.780
Successful		.744
Technical		.733
Leader		.708
Confident		.595
Intelligent		.463
Hard working		.412
Secure
Factor 3: Sincerity			.871
Sincere			.846
Honest			.689
Real			.673
Wholesome			.644
Reliable			.529
Down to earth			.412
Friendly
Factor 4: Sophistication				.713
Feminine				.670
Good-looking				.635
Glamorous				.625
Charming				.597
Smooth				.540
Upper class
Factor 5: Ruggedness					.878
Rugged					.842
Tough					.599
Masculine					.558
Outdoorsy
Factor 6: Uniqueness						.716
Original						.670
Unique
Factor 7: Family orientation							.722
Sentimental							.574
Family-oriented
Eigen values	12.683	3.684	2.761	2.130	1.508	1.258	1.053
Variance explained	32.520	9.446	7.078	5.461	3.867	3.226	2.700
Cumulative percentage	32.520	41.966	49.044	54.505	58.373	61.599	64.299

Note: Destination personality items were evaluated using the scale 1 = perfectly descriptive to 5 = not descriptive at all. Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization was used.

Of the seven underlying dimensions, Excitement was considered the most common personality dimension perceived by U.S. travelers. This accounted for approximately 32.5 percent of the variance and included concepts like trendy, cool, young, and exciting. Factor 2, Competence, accounted for an additional 9.4 percent of the variance, and includes the attributes of corporate, technical, leader, and hard working. The third factor, Sincerity, is defined by traits such as sincere, friendly, honest, and real. Factor 4, Sophistication, is associated with feminine, glamorous, charming, smooth, and upper class. The fifth factor, Ruggedness, is depicted by concepts like tough, rugged, masculine, and outdoorsy. Factor 6, Uniqueness, includes unique and original. Finally, the last factor represents family orientation and is defined by two attributes, sentimental and family oriented. The results of factor analysis suggest that the conceptual framework of brand personality dimensions by Aaker (1997) and in the previous literature were generally supported, if not clearly replicated.

The overall mean scores for the seven personality dimensions (Table 4) were as follows: Excitement, 2.93 (SD = 0.78); Competence, 3.35 (SD = 0.69); Sincerity, 3.36 (SD = 0.66); Sophistication, 2.49 (SD = 0.69); Ruggedness, 2.73 (SD = 0.73); Uniqueness, 3.27 (SD = 0.89); and Family orientation, 3.37 (SD = 0.78). South Korea was rated highest for the family orientation dimension, followed by both the sincerity and competence dimensions. From these results, we can infer that these impressions were most common in the respondents’ minds.

Table 4.

Mean Scores of Seven Personality Factors

Rank	DP Factors	Mean	Standard Deviation	Cronbach’s Alpha
1	Factor 7: Family orientation	3.372	.776	.708
2	Factor 3: Sincerity	3.357	.663	.864
3	Factor 2: Competence	3.353	.694	.894
4	Factor 6: Uniqueness	3.269	.888	.754
5	Factor 1: Excitement	2.932	.783	.916
6	Factor 5: Ruggedness	2.729	.728	.741
7	Factor 4: Sophistication	2.491	.692	.848

Note: Destination personality items were evaluated using the scale 1 = perfectly descriptive to 5 = not descriptive at all; composite means of each personality factor were used. DP = Destination Personality.

In the analysis of means for each of the destination personality attributes (Table 5), hard working received the highest mean score of 4.06, followed by intelligent, family oriented, technical, and real. The personality traits related to the sincerity and competence dimensions were most highly ranked and thus they can be considered to be the main perceived personality traits of South Korea, according to the participants. Also, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, the top 10 highest personality items are all from the dimensions of competence, sincerity, and family orientation, which confirm the sincere, competent, and family-oriented character of South Korea: 4 belong to competence, 3 to sincerity, and 2 to family orientation. On the other hand, the lowest mean score was allocated to the items in the dimensions of ruggedness and sophistication. The attributes associated with the excitement dimension, such as young and exciting, were located in the middle, indicating that respondents do not strongly associate the excitement dimension with South Korea.

Table 5.

Destination Personality Attributes

Attribute	Rank	Mean	Standard Deviation
Hard working	1	4.06	.82
Intelligent	2	3.80	.86
Family oriented	3	3.76	.89
Technical	4	3.67	.95
Real	5	3.54	.84
Sincere	6	3.49	.86
Friendly	7	3.45	.96
Honest	8	3.38	.84
Successful	9	3.36	.87
Reliable	10	3.32	.96
Original	11	3.27	1.03
Unique	12	3.26	1.03
Exciting	23	2.95	1.08
Young	26	2.85	1.03
Upper class	38	2.49	.91
Smooth	40	2.38	.85
Feminine	41	2.32	.94
Glamorous	42	2.28	.86

Note: Destination personality items were evaluated using the scale 1 = perfectly descriptive to 5 = not descriptive at all.

Figure 1.

Top 10 highest-scored destination personality attributes of South Korea

Figure 2.

Top 10 lowest-scored destination personality attributes of South Korea

Unstructured Responses

To allow for more free-flowing reactions to South Korea, respondents were given an opportunity to express in their own words how they felt about this country as a travel destination. The unstructured evaluations provided more specific and unique descriptors that would not be sufficiently captured by structured/scaled evaluations alone (Table 6).

Table 6.

Most Frequent Answers to Unstructured Questions

Rank	Category	Description
1	Friendliness	Friendly, welcoming, open, hospitable, inviting
2	Danger	War, Korean War, divided, dangerous, North Korea, tension between borders, conflict, DMZ, nuclear tension
3	Technology	Industrious, hard-working, manufacturing, tech, technology, advanced, city, urban, Samsung, Hyundai, LG, information technology (IT)
4	History	Old, traditional, history, ancient, oriental, exotic, Asian
5	Poverty	Somber, poor, poverty, underdeveloped
6	Quietness	Quiet, serene, conservative, tranquil, reserved, respectful
7	Fast pace	Hectic, fast paced, crowded, busy, populated

Analysis of these unstructured responses indicated that the majority were related to friendly, hospitable, welcoming, inviting, and open. Indeed, “people” can be recognized as one of the dominant attributes of South Korea. In approximately 70 percent of all responses describing the atmosphere or mood travelers would experience in South Korea, respondents mentioned friendly, hospitable local people and a welcoming ambience. These results are similar to those of the structured questions, which further showed that American travelers rate the Sincerity factor including friendly highly.

The second most frequently appearing theme was “competence.” Respondents associate South Korea with attributes such as “industrious, studious, diligent, and intelligent” as well as “technology, high-tech, and manufacturing.” This result confirms that Koreans, like many Asian people, are stereotyped in this way by Americans. These factors combined may be part of the reasons why respondents of this study rated competence more highly than other personality dimensions.

Interestingly, one of the most frequently mentioned impressions of the destination included “war, Korean War, threatened, military, dangerous, North Korea, DMZ, risky, tension, and conflict.” This result is actually consistent with the responses from the structured questionnaire, which showed “secure” was one of the lowest ranked items, even though it is included in the competence factor. Because of past wars and the continuing nuclear standoff between the South and North, South Korea’s image in the United States remains that of a potentially dangerous place to visit. The division of the Korean Peninsula and tension between the borders has been reported by the American media over a significant period of time. Because of this negative media coverage, prospective visitors might consider travel to South Korea to be unsafe. Furthermore, there seems to be some confusion between South Korea and North Korea in the minds of some respondents.

Other frequently mentioned negative impressions of the destination included descriptions such as “dirty, poor, poverty, underdeveloped, somber, third world, and rural.” These sentiments echoed the very low ranking of the sophistication dimension in the structured survey. Despite the fact that South Korea is the world’s 13th largest economy and has experienced remarkable economic growth over the past decades, the country is still widely unknown and undervalued in the United States. The confusion between North and South Korea could have contributed to this perception as well.

The next most common theme was the positive impression of cultural richness. Among various cultural aspects, respondents frequently mentioned distinctive Korean cuisine such as Kimchi and Bibimbap. Additional factors deemed important in this dimension are “quiet, serene, conservative, reserved, respectful, and shy,” which seemed to be the opposite of the dominant image of South Korea projected by the KTO website. On the basis of the perceptions of the respondents, it can be concluded that Americans tend to view Korean people as being conservative, shy, introverted, and reserved and living in quiet and serene surroundings. Although some respondents think of South Korea as a vibrant and active destination, others’ descriptions were in fact was somewhat negative: “busy, hectic, populated, and crowded.”

Comparison of the Projected and Perceived Brand Personalities

Although quantitative comparisons between the projected and perceived personalities of South Korea were not possible because of the nature of the data, a qualitative/holistic comparative assessment was attempted. This assessment revealed several similarities and differences. American travelers tend to view South Korea as a sincere and family-oriented destination with warm-hearted people and advanced technologies. This finding indicated that the KTO’s branding efforts to portray sincerity and competence seem to be effective, as those traits appear to resonate with U.S. consumers.

However, the findings also revealed significant discrepancies between the personality projected by the KTO and the actual perceptions of American respondents, which indicate a level of inconsistency in South Korea’s destination personality. The most salient discrepancy between the perceived and projected personalities was found in the “excitement” dimension. Although the KTO has been making a great effort to paint South Korea as an exciting destination, U.S. travelers do not seem to identify South Korea with "excitement." The exciting, dynamic, and energetic qualities projected by KTO were not acknowledged by the U.S. consumer market. Rather, South Korea was generally perceived as a very calm and serene country with reserved, shy people. The results indicate that American travelers have a very different perception of South Korea than what is projected and emphasized by the KTO.

Discussion and Conclusion

Utilizing Aaker’s BPS as a starting point, this study attempted to understand the projected and perceived personalities of South Korea as a travel destination through a combination of qualitative and quantitative assessment. Content analysis of the official tourism website revealed that South Korea communicates strong destination brand personality traits along the dimensions of excitement, sincerity, and to some extent, competence. In addition, the present study identified seven destination personality dimensions of excitement, competence, sincerity, sophistication, ruggedness, uniqueness, and family orientation based on a quantitative analysis of U.S. consumers’ perceptions. Competence and family orientation appeared to be the more dominant personality traits that the U.S. consumers associated with South Korea. Overall, the findings of this study suggest that despite South Korea’s extensive branding efforts, its projected brand personality traits have not been fully embraced by potential travelers from the United States. This was particularly true for the dimension of excitement, which was most prominent on the KTO website as reflected by the frequent appearances of words such as young, unique, sparkling, fresh, interesting, fun, vibrant, popular, special, and modern. However, Americans’ perceptions of South Korea did not echo these particular personality traits. These findings will undoubtedly provide some useful baseline information for South Korean tourism authorities to reevaluate their current branding strategies. More importantly, however, the outcome of this research contributes to the ongoing dialogue regarding strategic brand management.

Conceptual and Managerial Implications

This study brings a new focus to the existing body of knowledge regarding the application of brand personality in tourism. Previous research tended to focus either on the perceptions of destination brand image or on the images projected from various medial channels and platforms. There has been a dearth of research to effectively measure and understand gaps between the message being communicated and that being perceived. It seems highly likely that DMOs will need to attend to how consumers view potential destinations and how this will affect travel decisions with respect to communicating an intended brand image. Given the uncovered discrepancies between projected and perceived destination brand personalities, it is surprising how relatively little research on this important topic has been conducted. This study represents a refreshing initial step toward sensitizing marketers to the important issue of brand personality congruence.

Another unique contribution of this research is the development of an initial methodological approach to assess the congruence between personality traits portrayed by a DMO and traits perceived by potential consumers. We attempted to propose a mixed methods approach that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative data gathering and analysis. While attempts at developing such a method are preliminary, this research established a methodological framework that could become a practical tool for tourism marketing organizations in their efforts to diagnose and eliminate potential destination personality incongruence. For destination branding research to continue to provide destination marketers with pragmatic information and tools, developing such creative methodological approaches are valuable undertakings.

As Gartner (1993) suggested, tourism marketers must consider the current position of the destination when planning brand communication and promotion because it is perceptions more than factual information that influence tourists’ decisions. The gap between projected and perceived brand personality is crucial because it is essentially a measure of the effectiveness of a destination’s brand strategy manifested through its destination personality. Thus, destination marketers need to not only develop an accurate understanding of consumers’ perceptions and sentiments toward their destinations but also to take the projected versus perceived personality discrepancies into account when determining branding strategies if they are to create a destination brand that not only reflects what the destination has to offer but also resonates with their targeted markets.

A destination may have superior tourism resources, but if marketers are not able to convey these resource benefits to targeted potential travelers, it may lead to less than optimal outcomes. Therefore, DMOs should not only identify the existing gaps between projected and perceived destination personalities but also understand the contextual factors that may have contributed to such discrepancies and determine strategies to most effectively minimize such gaps. The relationship between perceived brand image and projected image can be dynamic. One can lead to another or the two images can covary, and longitudinal research is needed to assess such patterns. In addition, a large gap between the two images may lead to a destination–consumer disconnect. Another variable that needs to be casted in this conversation is the actual destination personality. Such a gap must be analyzed and attended to be brand mangers. The true nature of a destination can coexist with its projected and perceived destination; however, it must be acknowledged that what constitutes a true destination identity can be debatable depending on different ontological traditions (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Strategies for closing the gaps

In terms of the gap between the destinations’ actual and projected personalities (GAP 1), active internal communication is needed to understand a destination’s brand identity. In the corporate branding literature, internal consistency and congruency, indicating that all members of an organization behave in accordance with the desired brand identity, are vital to the successful external communication of a brand (Harris and de Chernatony 2001). Once members are aware of and understand the targeted brand, then it is crucial to continuously monitor whether the brand messages in their promotional activities are communicated as intended. The personalities projected by the DMOs are disseminated through various stakeholders, including not only distribution channel members but media outlets (Choi, Lehto, and Morrison 2007). Although much of the information that tourists receive cannot be fully controlled or managed by the DMOs, these organizations must attend to these discrepancies when planning communication strategies and attempt to convey a consistent message across all media channels. DMOs should make an effort to keep track of how the country is portrayed on various media channels and ensure that a brand personality is conveyed consistently by both its internal representatives and external communication.

In addition to the promotional effort, DMOs may develop tourism products that are consistent with the intended messages. The intangible nature of the destination personality presents a challenge for DMOs. This research seems to lend support for the proposition that DMOs can communicate intangible and emotionally linked brand personality messages through tangible and physical elements. This is accomplished through manipulating the tangible clues that sustain the mental constructs held by the target market. In the case of South Korea, tourism product development can consciously incorporate core brand personality traits of South Korea that resonate well with its target consumers in the U.S. market, such as friendliness and family orientation. Interestingly, popular national brands such as LG, Hyundai, and Samsung may have the potential to become tangible projections of the strengths of South Korea’s destination brand personalities. The respondents tend to associate the intangible qualities of South Korea, such as friendliness, sincerity, and technological orientation with Korean national brands popular in the United States. It would be beneficial to associate the positive attributes of popular Korean product brands such as Hyundai or LG with Korea in general.

With regard to the gap between the projected and perceived destination personalities (GAP 2), destination marketers should acknowledge that the alignment of these two elements is of critical importance. Strategies may then be fine-tuned to achieve a better match between projected and perceived personalities. Destination advertising campaigns must be clear about the realities of a destination and what it symbolizes in the minds of potential travelers. However, this is achieved not simply through advertising but through wider recognition of modes of consumer communication and interaction. The projected destination personality will be embraced by target consumers when the destination uses a consistent brand concept for an extended period because perceptions are based on brand knowledge and familiarity that are created by direct and indirect experiences accumulated over time. As destinations create consistent brand strategies and communicate a consistent brand image over an extended period of time, consumers will gradually develop brand knowledge.

When the incongruence between the true nature of the destination and what is perceived by target markets (GAP 3) is detected, DMOs must account for not only destination personalities that are conveyed with the intent of communicating core values associated with a destination but those that are perceived by the consumers, thus making reconciliation of the two imperative. Marketing groups and other such externally focused DMO departments may focus on analysis of their image and how consumers perceive it. This would enable the destination marketers to look for alternative interpretations of the destination’s image or ways in which the image can be improved. In addition, these groups can increase the flow of information about destinations, which they can then use proactively to minimize discrepancies regarding projected images. It is critical to make a continuous effort to maintain congruence between projected and perceived personalities through on-going communication with target markets. Two-way communication based on feedback from previous and potential travelers will help destinations tailor their projected images more precisely to target customers.

Limitations and Future Research

The sample collected using nonprobabilistic methods was an important limitation of the study. Although the profile of respondents corresponds to the profile of American international travelers surveyed in previous studies, their image of a country may not be representative of the U.S. population or even that held by other potential travelers in the United States.

Another limitation of the current study is its exploratory nature. In particular, the methodological approach certainly needs to be refined in future studies. Obviously, for this method to be applicable, it needs to be validated and fine-tuned through additional sample applications and perhaps in multiple cultural contexts. Moreover, the outcome of this research indicates that destination personality may go beyond the commonly acknowledged five personality dimensions identified by Aaker (1997). As brand personality perceptions may differ across brand and/or product type (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, and Garolera 2001), some tourist destination may have a specific personality dimension so unique that it should be included. Thus, additional research is needed in order to develop reliable, valid, and generalizable scales to measure destination personality dimensions and to capture the key personality dimensions useful for differentiating competitive brands within tourism markets. In addition, it must be noted that although the KTO has systematically documented their branding strategies and has attempted to carefully craft these intended brand images and personalities on their website, we cannot ensure that the brand is conveyed as intended.

Future research may further examine cross-cultural differences in the value assigned to specific attributes within brand personality dimensions. More studies should be undertaken regarding the understanding and interpretation of the brand personality dimensions and related attributes could be filtered through different cultural lenses. For instance, what the targeted American consumers consider to be an exciting place to visit might be different from what the KTO consider to be exciting. The excitement the KTO attempts to project through offering activities, events, and festivals may or may not be perceived as such by U.S. potential travelers. The authors encourage future research to continue in this direction by undertaking cross-cultural studies.

Future research is needed to analyze messages created by various media sources, such as magazines, brochures, newspapers, and other online websites, including travel blogs, guidebook websites, and travel agencies. As a result, DMOs will be able to more precisely assess and compare their portrayals to not only those held by tourists, but those created by the mass media. Visual information, such as photographic images, can be analyzed along with textual information because some destination brand personality dimensions may be better represented visually.

Another area for further research is how consumers formulate distinct perceptions about a destination personality according to individual differences such as previous travel experiences or destination website visitation experiences. Comparison of destination perceptions held by those who had visited the destination and those who had not may provide more interesting insights, allowing for a richer understanding of both visitors’ and nonvisitors’ perceptions of a destination’s personality. Also, further explorations through controlled experiments are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the DMO websites and the consumers’ responses after browsing these websites.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Soyeon Kim is a PhD student in Hospitality Management at the Ohio State University. Her research interests primarily focus on consumer behavior, consumer psychology, consumer experiences, and marketing/branding in hospitality and tourism. She is currently conducting research on the role of social influence in online consumer decision making.

Xinran Y. Lehto is an associate professor at Purdue University. Her research addresses how tourism destinations can effectively market experience-based vacation products to unique segments of tourism. Through her research, Dr Lehto has sought to provide tools that can assist destinations to effectively project attractive destination images to travelers.

References

Aaker

D. A.

(1996). Branding Strong Brands. New York: Free Press.

Aaker

(1997). “Dimensions of Brand Personality.” Journal of Marketing Research, 34: 342-52.

Aaker

Benet-Martinez

Garolera

(2001). “Consumption Symbolism as Carriers of Culture: A Study of Japanese and Spanish Brand Personality Construct.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (3): 492-508.

Baloglu

McCleary

K. W.

(1999). “U.S. International Pleasure Travelers’ Images of Four Mediterranean Destinations: A Comparison of Visitors and Nonvisitors.” Journal of Travel Research, 38 (2): 144-52.

Biel

(1993). “Converting Image into Equity.” In Brand Equity and Advertising, edited by Aaker

D. A.

Biel

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blain

Levy

S. E.

Ritchie

(2005). Destination Branding: Insights and Practices from Destination Management Organizations.” Journal of Travel Research, 43 (4): 328-83.

Cai

(2002). “Cooperative Branding for Rural Destinations.” Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (3): 720-42.

Choi

Lehto

X. Y.

Morrison

A. M.

(2007). “Destination Image Representation on the Web: Content Analysis of Macau Travel Related Websites.” Tourism Management, 28 (1): 118-29.

Davies

Chun

(2002). “Gaps between the Internal and External Perceptions of the Corporate Brand.” Corporate Reputation Review, 5 (2/3): 144-58.

10.

Ekinci

Hosany

(2006). “Destination Personality: An Application of Brand Personality to Tourism Destinations.” Journal of Travel Research, 45 (2): 127-39.

11.

Fournier

(1998). “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research.” Journal of Consumer Research, 24: 343-73.

12.

Freling

T. H.

Forbes

L. P.

(2005). “An Empirical Analysis of the Brand Personality Effect.” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14 (7): 404-13.

13.

Gallarza

M. G.

Saura

I. G.

(2006). “Value Dimensions, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Investigation of University Students’ Travel Behavior.” Tourism Management, 27 (3): 437-52.

14.

Gartner

W. C.

(1993). “Image Formation Process.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2 (2-3): 191-215.

15.

Gilmore

G. W.

(1919). Animism. Boston, MA: Marshall Jones.

16.

Govers

F. M.

(2005). “Projected Destination Image Online: Website Content Analysis of Pictures and Text.” Information Technology and Tourism, 7: 73-89.

17.

Govers

F. M.

Kumar

(2007). “Promoting Tourism Destination Image.” Journal of Travel Research, 46 (1): 15-23.

18.

Grubb

E. L.

Hupp

(1968). “Perceptions of Self, Generalized Stereotypes, and Brand Selection.” Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (1): 58-63.

19.

Hankinson

(2001). “Location Branding: A Study of the Branding Practices of 12 English Cities.” Journal of Brand Management, 9 (2): 127-42.

20.

Harris

de Chernatony

(2001). “Corporate Branding and Corporate Brand Performance.” European Journal of Marketing, 35 (3/4): 441-56.

21.

Hatch

M. J.

Shultz

(2003). “Bringing the Corporation into Corporate Branding.” European Journal of Marketing, 37 (7/8): 1041-64.

22.

Henderson

(2000). “Selling Places: The New Asia-Singapore Brand.” The Journal of Tourism Studies, 11 (1): 36-44.

23.

Hosany

Ekinci

Uysal

(2006). “Destination Image and Destination Personality: An Application of Branding Theories to Tourism Places.” Journal of Business Research, 59 (5): 638-42.

24.

Keller

K. L.

(1993). “Conceptualising, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.” Journal of Marketing, 57: 1-22.

25.

King

(1970). What Is Brand? London: J. Walter Thompson.

26.

Korea Tourism Organization (KTO). (2010). “Tourism Statistics.” http://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/bs/tour_investment_support/invest_guidance/visitkorea_foreigner_pattern.jsp (assessed June 15, 2010).

27.

KTO. (2011). “Brand Values.” http://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/VI/VI_EN_2_2.jsp (assessed January 10, 2011).

28.

Moon

(2002). “Personalization and Personality: Some Effects of Customizing Message Style Based on Consumer Personality.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (4): 313-26.

29.

Morgan

Pritchard

(2002). “Contextualising Destination Branding.” In Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition, edited by Morgan

Pritchard

Pride

Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

30.

Murphy

Benckendorff

Moscardo

(2007). “Destination Brand Personality: Visitor Perceptions of a Regional Tourism Destination.” Tourism Analysis, 12 (5/6): 419-32.

31.

Murphy

Moscardo

Benckendorff

(2007). “Using Brand Personality to Differentiate Regional Tourism Destinations.” Journal of Travel Research, 46 (1): 5-14.

32.

Nandan

(2005). “An Exploration of the Brand Identity-Brand Image Linkage: A Communications Perspective.” Journal of Brand Management, 12 (4): 264-78.

33.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

34.

Ramaseshan

Tsao

(2007). “Moderating Effects of the Brand Concept on the Relationship between Brand Personality and Perceived Quality.” Journal of Brand Management, 14 (6): 458-66.

35.

Ritchie

J. R. B.

Ritchie

R. J. B.

(1998). “Destination Marketing.” International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism Report, 40: 89-116.

36.

Sirgy

M. J.

(1982). “Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review.” Journal of Consumer Research, 9: 287-300.

37.

Solomon

M. R.

(1983). “The Role of Products as Social Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective.” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (3): 319-29.

38.

Sweeny

J. C.

Brandon

(2006). “Brand Personality: Exploring the Potential to Move from Factor Analytical to Circumplex Models.” Psychology and Marketing, 23 (8): 639-63.