Abstract
Many cities have begun to use experiential marketing in order to create cohesive place branding messages that appeal to different potential visitors, both tourists and locals. By identifying the brand experiences that influence place dependence and positive outcomes such as word-of-mouth and revisit intention, the success of a city downtown can be measured. This study surveyed visitors (locals and tourists) in three city downtowns (Asheville, North Carolina, Nashville, Tennessee, and Chattanooga, Tennessee). After testing the structural equation model for each visitor group, potential strategies for improving downtown success are discussed.
Introduction
Place branding has been used as a new marketing strategy that brands the unique characteristics of a place, thereby stimulating the location’s growth (Kavaratzis 2004; Zenker and Martin 2011). The unique characteristics can be in the form of natural assets of a place, including retail centers, heritage, landscape, cultural attractions, and entertainment, or hallmark events that are held to attract more tourists as well as locals (Parkerson and Saunders 2005). Driven by the need to attract more visitors and boost economic situation, governments and other stakeholders at the local, regional, and national levels have all begun to take an interest in branding places (Kerr and Johnson 2005).
The process of branding a place is similar to that of branding a product. When a product is branded, a symbol, name, design, or sign is applied to distinguish the product from its competing products, thereby forming a unique image in the minds of consumers (Kneesel, Baloglu, and Millar 2009; Kotler 1997). Likewise, if a place has distinguishing or discernible characteristics, the place image becomes strong to visitors who crave new or enjoyable experiences. The positive experiences they gain from the place form their “brand experiences” and these experiences influence their impression toward the place and the intention to return to the place.
Places are branded based on different geographical sizes or scales (Hankinson 2001), at the country, state, regional, city, district, or downtown level (Hall 2008; Jones, Jones, and Woods 2004). A review of the literature on place branding in the top 20 tourism journals (McKercher, Law, and Lam 2006) from 1999 to 2012 provided three geographical scales: city level, regional level, and country level. Of the 75 articles reviewed, 17 addressed city branding, 25 addressed regional branding, and 20 addressed country branding. Only a few studies have been conducted at the downtown or district level (Brown 1994; Hall 2008; Runyan and Huddleston 2006). While a city may brand a district or a downtown, ultimately a downtown brand is representative of and affected by the city and regional brand. In other words, a downtown or district brand does not occur in isolation but rather is a part of the “architecture” of the city and regional brand (Hall 2008). In this sense, branding a downtown can provide efficiency to city managers because the branding effort can be made on a smaller scale and because people equate the downtown with the city that encompasses the district (Hall 2008).
Tourists and locals may want different experiences when visiting a city downtown. If a city promotes and markets its brand only to tourists (or locals), locals (or tourists) will become detached and thus would be less interested in visiting the place (Parkerson and Saunders 2005). In fact, realizing that focusing too heavily on local residents or tourists can create conflict and ultimately alienate both groups (Parkerson and Saunders 2005; Snepenger et al. 1998), some cites have begun to develop and implement separate branding strategies for each group (Zenker and Martin 2011). However, no empirical study has compared locals and tourists in experiencing a branded downtown.
The purpose of this study is to facilitate an understanding about what types of experiences visitors (locals vs. tourists) obtain from a branded city downtown. Brand experience is a new phenomenon that has evolved in the branding literature and is seen as an improved method for assessing the brand–consumer relationship (Schembri 2009). We will use dimensions of brand experience (i.e., affective, sensory, intellectual, and behavioral experiences) developed by Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello (2009) to determine which experiences influence place dependence and ultimately positive outcomes in terms of word-of-mouth and revisit intention, as a measure of downtown success. By understanding the types of experiences that appeal to each visitor group, city marketing managers can develop distinct strategies to meet each group’s needs and desires. This will not only help visitors engage in pleasurable experiences but also maximize the number of visitors to the city downtown.
Literature Review
Place Branding
The place brand is related to the overall culture, heritage, and values that the geographic location represents. The communications through various forms of media and marketing as well as the landscape and design of the place form the place brand (Zenker and Braun 2010). City branding is a subfield of place branding that stresses the branding and marketing of a city to local residents, tourists, and future residents (Hanna and Rowley 2011; Merrilees, Miller, and Herington 2009). By focusing on the unique aspects of a city, marketing managers can tackle the problem of the lack of differentiation that occurs in many towns (Campelo, Aitken, and Gnoth 2010; Gartner and Ruzzier 2010; Kavaratzis 2004). In creating a city brand, marketing managers must determine the ways that enhance visitors’ positive experiences with the branded city, which will ultimately determine the success of the city.
Some cities have been actively marketing their brands for years, occasionally changing or modifying their brand messages to enhance appeal to both residents and tourists. Las Vegas, Nevada began to aggressively market its place brand about a decade ago. The tragedy of September 11, 2001, however, resulted in the reduced number of travelers, thus negatively impacting businesses in this tourist-dependent city. At the time of the tragedy, Las Vegas implemented numerous marketing campaigns, trying to appeal to families and gamblers as well as businesses. However, this created a confusing message and ultimately the city recognized the need to clarify its message and deliver a singular promise to visitors. At this time, the city commenced the “What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas” campaign in addition to reinforcing the “Sin City” message. Las Vegas recognized its strength as a glamorous city with lively nightlife, and a place that creates unique yet inauthentic experiences from replications of famous places such as downtown New York City and the pyramids in Egypt (Hospers 2011). The various fonts in the Las Vegas logo are used to depict fun and exciting experiences, which have been communicated via television and radio advertisements.
Another example is the downtown branding of Lower Manhattan, New York City. In order to brand Lower Manhattan’s Canal Street Down (labeled as “CanDo”) district, brand managers issued new maps of the region with clear, internationally recognized eye-catching signage with an emphasis on museums, theaters, parks, bus routes, parking, and other places of interests. The brand name “CanDo” is intended to emulate the success of the SoHo (South of Houtson) and TriBeCa (Triangle Below Canal) neighborhoods and to create a distinct place in the minds of the visitors, instead of the unclear “Lower Manhattan” (Corso and Schapiro 2010).
Place Brand Experiences
The main goal of place brand marketers is to maximize positive brand experiences. Brand experiences are conceptualized as “subjective, internal consumer responses (sensations, feelings, and cognitions) and behavioral responses evoked by brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand’s design and identity, packaging, communications, and environments” (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009, p. 53). Drawing from Schmitt’s (1999) five different experiences (i.e., think, feel, sense, relate, and act), Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello developed four dimensions of brand experiences: affective, behavioral, sensory, and intellectual experiences. These experiences create lasting emotional impressions on the consumer (Klaus and Maklan 2007) and thus influence the success of branding efforts (Iglesias, Singh, and Batista-Foguet 2011).
Brand experiences occur in various contexts such as product brands, service brands, corporate brands, and place brands (Skinner 2008). A place brand experience occurs when a person interacts with a branded place and gains pleasurable experiences (Hanna and Rowley 2011). In fact, Mkhize (2010) attested that realizing these pleasurable experiences is the ultimate goal of locals and tourists when visiting a city. When people experience a place brand, they often ascribe an emotional meaning to the place, becoming attached to the place (Lindstedt 2011). These positive brand experiences will lead to repeated interactions with the place and positive word of mouth (Morgan-Thomas and Veloutsou 2011), which are the desired outcomes that place marketers want to attain. We propose that the relationships between brand experiences and desired outcomes are mediated by place dependence unique to the downtown. When potential visitors to a downtown are dependent on the place for its brand experiences, positive outcomes will occur (Hosany and Gilbert 2009). This suggests that place marketers should monitor key elements and outcomes of the visitors’ experiences for successful brand management (Baker 2007).
Place brand experiences may be conveyed through sensory delights based on smells, sights, tastes, and sounds (Balakrishnan 2008). Place brand experiences also include intellectual experiences that challenge an individual to learn or to think freely about a branded place. Place brand experiences can result from behavioral experiences that involve a visitor’s performing actions such as walking in a park, getting a tattoo, and dancing (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009; Schmitt 1999). Place brand experiences also can become affective by sharing time with loved ones andparticipating in activities that have personal meanings (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009; Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick 2010).
In marketing, place brand experience has been related to “scapes,” referred to as the physical environment that a consumer experiences. These “scapes” can be created to encourage visitors to gain unique experiences (Hall 2008; Julier 2005). For instance, the downtown of Leavenworth, Washington, offers a Bavarian theme in its architecture and business mix, creating staged experiences to visitors who may feel like they are in the Austrian Alps (Runyan and Huddleston 2006). These staged or crafted experiences also have been called “experiencescapes,” defined as experiencing “stylized landscapes that are strategically planned and designed with market imperatives as the key design goal” (Hall 2008, p. 237). Experiencescapes can be a major part of the overall brand experience in that they are created to help potential visitors identify the place brand.
This study employs four experiential components of Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello (2009): behavioral, sensory, affective, and intellectual experience. Each of these brand experience dimensions will be discussed in the following sections with its application to a downtown brand. A graphical depiction of the proposed research model including the four dimensions is illustrated in Figure 1.
Proposed research model.
Behavioral Brand Experience
The behavioral experience refers to physical actions and behaviors stimulated by a place brand (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009) and it is related to Schmitt’s (1999) “act” experience. In this sense, behavioral experiences encompass different types of experiences related to the physical body whether they are related to recreation (biking, dancing, jogging), nightlife (bars, clubs), or food (local and international cuisine). Behavioral experiences that a visitor desires to have in downtowns reflect his preferred lifestyle or leisure activities (Schmitt 2008). For example, a visitor can gain a positive behavioral experience by enjoying the type of concert related to his lifestyle. Alternatively, a visitor can participate in a bike race or jogging related to his healthy lifestyle. Therefore, city downtowns can offer many opportunities for the behavioral experiences that reflect visitors’ lifestyles or leisure interests to enhance the appeal and unique experiences to the visitors.
Sensory Brand Experience
When visitors undergo sensory experiences, they sense what occurs outside the body and most of their associations will be related to the visual nature of experiences (Bloch, Brunel, and Arnold 2003; Schmitt 2008). The visual component of sensory experiences (specifically color) is considered a primary element of the sensory dimension (Schmitt 1999). Other visual components of sensory experiences include materials, ornamentation, proportion, size, and shape. These visual components contribute to an overall visual identity and provide visitors with an esthetic sense of the surroundings including architecture, landscapes, buildings, decorations, and lights (Lew 2011; Uusitalo 2010). A branded downtown should have a unique visual identity, because this identity is necessary and important in communicating positive brand experiences (Schmitt 1999).
Other types of senses such as smells, taste, and sounds occur when a visitor is exposed to a downtown brand. Smells can occur in the form of traffic and mountain breezes, and through flowers, bakeries, and restaurants. Tastes materialize when visitors consume various foods and drinks offered by shops and restaurants in the place. Sounds are evident through music, people, and traffic, which can be experienced through festivals, outdoor concerts, or inside venues such as restaurants and clubs. These sensory appeals deliver desirable and unique types of sensory experiences, which help to differentiate the downtown from other downtowns.
Affective Brand Experience
Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello’s (2009) affective brand experience was conceptualized based on Ambler’s (1997) argument that affect is related to feelings and attitudes evoked from a brand. Affective experiences can result in emotions that are mild (e.g., moods) or intense (e.g., feelings and sentiments) (Schmitt 1999). Since moods are not as intense as feelings and sentiments, visitors may not recognize that their moods have been altered due to some positive (or negative) affective stimuli, for example, background music. Intense emotions toward a place brand can be elicited when a person experiences strong feelings and sensations (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009). In this case, the visitor tends to be aware of its source (e.g., an exceptional service experience in a unique downtown restaurant). These intense emotions are developed over time often via multiple interactions with the place brand (Schmitt 1999).
Whether mild or intense, various emotions comprise affective experiences such as pleasure, sociability, joy, happiness, excitement, love, and contentment (Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick 2010; Schmitt 1999). For example, a visitor may experience pleasure when visiting downtown Nashville, Tennessee, because the visitor has a strong interest in country and bluegrass music, two genres of music of which Nashville has a rich heritage. A visitor also may experience sociability that involves face-to-face interaction with tourists, locals, family, friends, and acquaintances. All of these affective feelings help to stimulate a visitor’s memory and fantasy about the downtown brand (Gnoth 2007), providing positive experiences to the visitor.
Intellectual Brand Experience
Intellectual experiences occur when the place brand helps to stimulate a visitor’s curiosity and cause him to think. Thus, place marketers need to consider the thought process that they wish to invoke via city design, types of available leisure activities, shops, and advertising. When intellectual experiences occur, they result in different types of thinking (Cacioppo and Petty 1982) such as convergent and divergent thinking (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009; Zarantonello and Schmitt 2010). Convergent thinking entails using heuristics (rules of thumb) to arrive at a decision (Schmitt 1999). If a potential visitor is exposed to several positive messages about a place brand, he may use convergent thinking from various messages about the destination. This convergent thinking can result in the choice to visit the destination, or the choice to stay multiple nights rather than just a day trip. In this sense, place marketers need to consider the array of appeals that a city downtown has to offer and communicate these appeals to repeat and potential visitors. Divergent thinking occurs when a visitor thinks freely about a branded place in different and creative ways. In order for divergent intellectual appeals to be successful, visitors need to understand and comprehend the place brand (Schmitt 1999). For instance, those that are familiar with the Las Vegas brand may think freely about the slogan “What Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas,” and may perceive the city as a place that provides excitement and fun that would normally be outside of the everyday experiences in their lives. Thinking freely about these potential experiences may stimulate potential visitors to consider a trip to Las Vegas.
The convergent and divergent thinking of intellectual experiences aroused from a place will result in an attachment to the place brand (Bendel 2011; Schmitt 1999). Thus, place marketing managers can use heuristics (e.g., different incentives) to appeal to visitors’ needs. In addition, place marketing managers can use slogans and logos that stimulate free thinking of potential visitors, meeting their own needs. In providing heuristics or promoting free thinking, marketing managers are promoting positive intellectual brand experiences.
Downtown Brand Experience by Visitor Type
The visitors who are exposed to the same place brand have diverse backgrounds and interests and thus may have different interpretations and experiences from the same place brand (Laaksonen et al. 2006). In other words, two visitors who participate in the same activity in the same place may have completely different experiences (Crouch 2011; Gartner and Ruzzier 2010; Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick 2010; Ooi 2005). Therefore, it seems critical to assess whether local residents and tourists differ in their experiences with the branded downtown. This assessment will help city marketers communicate the types of experiences that appeal to each group, thus generating the long-term success of the city downtown.
Only a few studies compared priorities or interests between residents and visitors. For example, Kianicka, Buchecker, and Hunziker (2006) found that leisure activities and local heritage are more important to tourists while social and family bonds are more important to locals. Other studies also discovered that local residents’ primary interests while in the downtown are shopping, socializing, and partaking in community events (Snepenger et al. 1998), while tourists’ main interests are to experience restaurants, dance clubs, shopping, concerts, museums, and arts (Parkerson and Saunders 2005). However, no empirical studies have examined which dimensions of brand experience function more for local citizens versus tourists. Although locals often behave like tourists in their own city downtown by shopping, socializing, and recreating, some types of experiences may be of greater or lesser importance than those of tourists (Merrilees, Miller, and Herington 2007). At the same time, some brand experiences may fulfill the needs of both tourists and local citizens (Parkerson and Saunders 2005). Because their desired experiences may be different, downtown brand marketers need to balance the marketing efforts between tourists and local citizens to avoid a conflict of interest (Parkerson and Saunders 2005). While many studies focus on tourist experiences, scholars and city marketers should not disregard primary interests of local citizens, which otherwise would risk alienating this important visitor group (Lindstedt 2011).
Place Dependence
As a key dimension of place attachment (Moore and Graefe 1994), place dependence is defined as a person’s perception of his association with and reliance on a particular place (Stokols and Schumaker 1981). Place dependence has been applied to individuals in psychology research (Weiss 1988), different brands in marketing research (Belk 1988; Thomson, MacInnis, and Park 2005), and specific places in tourism research (Gross and Brown 2006; Hou 2005). When a visitor fulfills his desired experiences in a downtown, the visitor becomes more dependent on the downtown. Specifically, when a downtown offers services and activities that meet a visitor’s desire, the visitor will be satisfied with the place and enjoys his visit (Kyle et al. 2004).
When a visitor becomes dependent on a downtown, an emotional bond is formed with the downtown (Bowlby 1988; Uusitalo 2010). Resulting from this emotional attachment to the downtown, the visitor promotes his memorized experiences to family, friends, and acquaintances (Hankinson 2009). Ultimately, these positive experiences influence him to return to the place (Hunt 2008). Therefore, place dependence not only provides emotional benefits to visitors but also brings desirable outcomes to city downtown marketers.
Measure of Downtown Success
The success of a downtown can be gauged by determining whether tourists revisit the downtown or residents choose to continue to act as tourists in their own city downtown and whether these visitors spread positive words about the downtown (Insch and Florek 2008). These positive outcomes can result from visitors’ experience with the place brand (Baker 2007). As Li (2009) illustrated, brand experiences become long-lasting and memorable as a visitor is more exposed to the downtown place brand.
Not all place brand experiences are positive; some are negative (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009). At the same time, some place brand experiences are spontaneous and short-lived, while other place brand experiences are longer lasting and more likely to be remembered. These long-lasting experiences tend to influence positive outcomes associated with the downtown brand such as emotional attachment to the place, word of mouth, and revisit intention (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009; Iglesias, Singh, and Batista-Foguet 2011; Kim, Ritchie, and McCormick 2010).
Seemingly the best way to predict the success of the downtown is to measure visitors’ remembered brand experiences, which will lead to place dependence and ultimately word of mouth and revisit intention (Wirtz et al. 2003). To illustrate, if visitors speak positively about the downtown after their trip, others will receive the message and choose to make a similar trip of their own. If visitors have positive experiences in the downtown, they will be more likely to repeat these experiences with a future visit. When the downtown attracts more new and repeat visitors, the local economy will benefit from improved business in several venues such as shops, restaurants, and hotels.
Research Objectives
Although brand experience is a multidimensional construct composed of behavioral, sensory, affective, and intellectual experiences, a visitor can gain more than one of these experiences from his participation in one activity (Gnoth 2007). For instance, when a visitor attends a concert in the city downtown, the sounds and lights would appeal to his visual and auditory sensory experiences. The experiences could hold a special meaning for the visitor, which could result in feelings of happiness, pleasure, and sociability by being with people that the visitor cares about. To be brief, multiple brand experiences can be simultaneously stimulated through different activities and encounters in a city downtown whether shopping, eating at a restaurant, and attending a concert or an art show.
This study is conducted to determine which dimensions of brand experience promote place dependence and whether the place dependence leads to positive outcomes such as revisit intention and positive word of mouth. Based on previous findings (Parkerson and Saunders 2005) that suggest some possible differences between tourists and local residents in their experiences, this study will also examine whether the effects of brand experiences on place dependence and outcomes differ by visitor type (tourists vs. locals). The following research objectives reflect these goals:
To examine whether and which brand experience dimensions (i.e., sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual) affect place dependence.
To examine whether place dependence affects word of mouth and revisit intention.
To investigate whether these effects differ by visitor group (locals vs. tourists).
Methods
Sample and Data Collection
The sample consisted of visitors to three downtowns: Asheville, North Carolina, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Nashville, Tennessee. These three city downtowns have been actively branded. The downtown of Asheville has been involved in creating a visual identity using a brand logo to position itself as a destination for tourists and local citizens. The new visual identity of the Asheville downtown brand signals “themes of diversity and allowing visitors and residents alike to have a personal experience” (Anon 2011a). In 2011, the downtown of Chattanooga used a branding campaign to create a new brand and logo to be displayed throughout the downtown. With the goal of the brand to “give a cohesiveness and a sense of identity” (Anon. 2011b), place marketers in Chattanooga developed the logo “Chattanooga Happens Downtown,” to entice the visitors to experience the downtown for shopping and recreation (Anon. 2011b). Nashville is well known for its “Music City” brand. This music city brand permeates the downtown with many different music-themed shops, record stores, restaurants, and bars. However, in 2009 students at Vanderbilt University sought to rebrand downtown Nashville as a place where entrepreneurs can run a successful business. They worked in conjunction with the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce to communicate this message to future entrepreneurs in downtown Nashville. The goal of this rebranding process was not to abandon the “Music City” part of the downtown brand, but rather include an entrepreneurial theme in addition to the well-known music theme (Wolf 2009). The strategies implemented by these three downtowns provide evidence that these districts are indeed branded and hence offer an opportunity for positive experiences to visitors.
An intercept survey format was used in data collection at each of the three downtowns, where surveys were administered during the hours between noon and sundown, for two days between Thursday and Sunday, during the months of May through July. The location for data administration had to be selected to capture the largest number of participants while they were standing or sitting rather than walking. For this purpose, the researchers were stationed in the waterfront park near the aquarium in Chattanooga, in the riverfront park near the football stadium in Nashville, and in Battery Park, the heart of the downtown in Asheville. To increase participation, the researchers provided a drawing to win an electronic device.
A total of 855 surveys were collected from the three downtowns. To determine whether the respondent is a local citizen or tourist, we asked a question on his or her zip code. “Local” was labeled for the case with miles equal to or less than 50; and “tourist” as the case more than 50 miles. In addition, 82 were excluded because they rated 1-3 (indicating weak brand image perception) for the question “This downtown has strong brand image”; 80 were excluded because of incomplete responses; and 93 were excluded because of careless responses. The final sample consisted of 200 local citizens (53 from Nashville, 74 from Asheville, and 73 from Chattanooga) and 400 tourists (184 from Nashville, 106 from Asheville, and 110 from Chattanooga). Females (58.50%) and Caucasian (89.22%) represented the largest percentages of the sample. The respondents’ ages ranged from 18 to 74, with 38 as the median age. They represented all income categories, with $60,000-79,999 as the median income.
Instrument
Existing scales in the relevant literature were adapted for this study. Four factors of brand experience were adapted from the study of Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello (2009); place dependence, from Moore and Graefe (1994); word of mouth, from Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002); and revisit intention, from Huang and Hsu (2009). All items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Modifications from the original scale items were necessary to reflect the research setting of physical downtowns. In order to determine face validity, a content analysis was conducted by a faculty member and several graduate students from a major university in the southeastern United States. Based on the content analysis, one item measuring place dependence (i.e., “The things I do in this downtown I would enjoy just as much at another downtown”) was excluded because of ambiguous wording and one item measuring word of mouth (i.e., “I will speak positively of this downtown to others”) was excluded because of an overlap with other word of mouth items. The final items are listed in Table 1.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results.
Results
Measurement Model
To evaluate the measurement model, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8.80 was conducted with 7 factors and 28 observations separately for the tourist and local group. Prior to running CFA, PRELIS 2.80 (Joreskog, Sorbom, and Wallentin 2006) checked the normality of the data and revealed that 24 among 28 items deviated from normality. Thus, CFA was computed with a polychoric correlation matrix and the matrix of asymptotic covariances, because the observed variables were ordinal and nonnormal. Following these matrices, diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimation was employed (Joreskog, Sorbom, and Wallentin 2006). Model fit was measured with chi-square, comparative fit index (CFI), nonnormed fit index (NNFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Hair et al. 2009).
Construct reliabilities of all variables were all above .70. The CFA showed good model fit: chi-square = 629.003, df = 278, CFI = 0.979, NNFI = 0.975, and RMSEA = 0.080 for locals; and chi-square = 745.078, df = 278, CFI = 0.986, NNFI = 0.984, and RMSEA = 0.065 for tourists. Construct validity was determined with both convergent and discriminant validity. Convergent validity was validated by all factor loadings ranging from 0.665 to 0.977 for locals and from 0.602 to 0.966 for tourists, greater than the threshold 0.5 (Hair et al. 2009), and average variance extracted (AVE) above 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Discriminant validity was assessed by examining correlations across the constructs. Correlations between variables above 0.85 indicate poor discriminant validity (Kenny 2012). All correlations between constructs were less than 0.734, confirming the discriminant validities of all constructs.
Structural Model
Because this study investigates a set of relationships among multiple independent variables and multiple dependentvariables via a mediating variable, the structural model was deemed to be the method for examining the relationships among constructs for both locals (Figure 2) and tourists (Figure 3). The structural model had good fit: chi-square = 708.344, df = 287, CFI = 0.975, NNFI = 0.971, RMSEA = 0.086 for locals; and chi-square = 999.121, df = 287, CFI = 0.979, NNFI = 0.976, RMSEA = 0.078 for tourists. For locals, positive effects of sensory (β = 0.744, p < .001) and behavioral (β = 0.302, p < .05) experiences existed on place dependence. For tourists, positive effects of sensory (β = 0.643, p < .01) and affective (β = 0.366, p < .05) experiences existed on place dependence. Finally, the positive coefficient estimates for the paths from place dependence to word of mouth (β = 0.930 for locals; β = 0.916 for tourists) and revisit intention (β = 0.792 for locals; β = 0.899 for tourists) were significant (p < .001) for both models.
SEM result of locals.
SEM result of tourists.
Discussion and Conclusion
The results provide several distinct as well as common characteristics between the two visitor groups. First, behavioral brand experience was a significant predictor for locals but not for tourists. This can be explained by the fact that tourists may not have enough time to engage in behavior with the downtown, while locals have more time to explore the downtown and experience its offerings leading to some kind of behavior toward the place. Second, affective brand experience was a significant predictor for tourists but not for locals. When a tourist experiences a place for the first time or after a long time, the place can evoke strong emotions in his mind. For a local who has been frequenting the place for a while, the novelty of the place ceases to exist and monotony might set in, generating neutral emotions toward the place. Third, intellectual brand experience was not significant for both tourists and locals. This insignificant relationship could be related to the location of the downtowns chosen for this study. Chattanooga, Asheville, and Nashville downtowns could be considered as venues for relaxed atmosphere with few opportunities to engage in activities that stimulate one’s intellect (e.g., learning a new activity, visiting historic and activity-based museums). Fourth, sensory brand experience was significant for both groups, indicating that for tourists and locals alike, the various elements of the downtown affecting different senses have a positive effect on place dependence. From the above discussion, it can be concluded that the antecedents of place dependence vary by visitor type (i.e., tourists vs. locals). Finally, irrespective of being a tourist or a local, once a visitor is dependent on a downtown, it leads to revisit intention and positive word of mouth.
Implications
The results of this study indicate that tourists and locals experience a branded downtown differently. These different types of experiences lead them to be dependent on the downtown, which in turn encourages them to revisit the place or spread positive messages about the place. Visitors increasingly make decisions about downtown brands based on the positive experiential aspects that each downtown offers (Zarantonello and Schmitt 2010). These positive experiences should be distinct from the experiences from other similar downtowns in order for tourists and locals to revisit and recommend the place to others (Gartner and Ruzzier 2010; Warnaby 2006). Therefore, it is essential for downtown brand marketers to develop unique messages for their place and then promote the place differently to the two groups so these visitors may communicate their experiences toward the place to others (Hanna and Rowley 2011).
Downtown brand managers must strive to create an affective experience with the place for tourists. An example of a place branding campaign that aims to achieve an affective experience is the “I, Amsterdam” citywide tourism campaign developed for the city of Amsterdam, Netherlands. With its unique slogan and packaging, the city aims to develop an affective experience for tourists. With the “I, Amsterdam” slogan, tourists could feel like they are a part of and are welcome to the place. The idea behind this campaign is to encourage a personal endorsement by inserting a human aspect to the city, thereby leading tourists to have an emotional attachment toward the place. Along these lines is the “I am downtown. Where Lafayette happens” campaign developed by downtown Lafayette, Louisiana. This campaign aims to highlight the importance of downtown and show the emotional ties between people and the downtown (Anon. 2012a). Similarly, Colorado’s new tourism campaign aims to create an emotional connection with tourists by showing stunning images of people at play in Colorado’s mountains, lakes, and alpine meadows. The campaign is aimed toward an emotional awakening for tourists including a sense of desire to explore, connect, and be a part of the place instead of just visiting the place (Ferrier 2012).
Although the sensorial experience leading to place dependence is significant for both groups, it may be needed to be tuned differently to locals and tourists. For example, tourists might prefer a bazaar-like environment to shop or a sit-down restaurant, whereas locals might prefer a grocery store or a fast-food restaurant to quickly get their chores done. However, sensorial experiences of both tourists and locals can be improved by incorporating unique elements to the downtown that may appeal to all the five senses—sight, sound, touch, smell, and taste. Examples of various sensorial elements that constitute a place and set a downtown apart from others include vivid colors, expanse architecture or landscape, murals, fountains, waterfront, music events, bazar, food vendors, and diverse mix of businesses. Having such unique sensorial elements to a downtown makes the place striking, memorable, and fun, leading to a greater preference for that downtown to any other downtown. For example, downtown Cherokee, North Carolina, recently underwent a transformation in order to appeal to visitors. The downtown brand managers of Cherokee underscored the town’s natural surroundings and traditional Cherokee architecture by incorporating river walks, heavy timbers, native stone work, earth tones, green metal roofing, and Cherokee lettering. The river walks and greenways were developed with the notion of making visitors linger in the area, thereby encouraging spending at local businesses (Bowling 2012).
On the other hand, it is important for a place marketer to understand that the above sensory elements alone may not appeal to locals who have experienced the place several times. Locals have instant access to a downtown and can visit the place many times without planning, eventually leading to boredom toward the place. In order to avoid the monotony, apart from creating sensorial experiences, brand managers need to make the downtown a place creating a positive behavioral experience. The downtown should be developed as a place that has the capacity to pull locals and offers them physically interactive experiences. Downtown marketers could consider strategies such as offering a weekly farmer’s market, a performing arts center, reducing ticket costs to museums and events for locals, offering a diversifying retail mix, and promoting special events (e.g., Cinco de Mayo, Memorial Day). Such initiatives will make the locals become involved in the downtown beyond a cursory visit and will make them feel that the downtown engages them physically and mentally. An example of a downtown that caters behavioral experiences to locals is Downtown Battery Park City, New York, which built a multiplex cinema theater in order to attract more locals (Jacobs 1995). Another example is downtown Atlanta that has a program called “First Thursdays Artwalk” where the locals are encouraged one day a month to stroll through the downtown and enjoy the art created by local artists. On that day, local businesses and restaurants offer a variety of discounts and the city provides free parking (Vejinoska 2009). Similarly, downtown brand managers of Xenia, Ohio, developed a downtown strategic plan titled “live, work and play” with the aim of bringing more residents to its downtown. The downtown brand managers transformed the second and third floor spaces in the downtown buildings into housing in order to attract young professionals and empty-nesters to live there (Robinson 2012). In the same vein, the city of Dayton, Ohio, aimed to attract a local workforce by developing a campaign titled “from heavy automobile to capturing young creative talent” (Yu 2010). A further example of a downtown catering to locals is the downtown of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which has an initiative called “Be a tourist in your town” that encourages locals to rediscover their downtowns (Anon. 2012b).
Because brand experience theory is a relatively new concept in the marketing literature, it is important to establish its relevance in the place branding (tourism) research (Nysveen, Pedersen, and Skard 2012). In this study, the application of the theory is extended to a place setting, while previous studies only measured product or service brands (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009; Iglesias, Singh, and Batista-Foguet 2011; Nysveen, Pedersen, and Skard 2012; Zarantonello and Schmitt 2010). When visitors have strong and positive experiences from a branded downtown, these experiences can be used as a measure of the success of a downtown brand.
From the above discussion and implications, it is evident that downtown brand managers need to make a distinction between tourists and locals and understand that the antecedents of place dependence are different for the two groups. Downtown brand managers need to focus on creating affective and sensory brand experiences for tourists while creating behavioral and sensory experiences for locals. Strong place dependence leads to revisit intention and positive word of mouth for both visitors and locals, thereby leading to increased revenue for the place.
Limitations and Future Studies
This study has several limitations that could be addressed in future studies. First, the locations of three downtowns included in this study are geographically limited (southeast) and proximal (less than 300 miles from each other). A diverse set of locations offering different types of entertainment might offer different perspectives in terms of the antecedents to place dependence. For example, a location such as Las Vegas, Nevada, with adult-oriented entertainment options might yield a different set of predictors for place dependence for tourists and locals from those of Orlando, Florida, with its emphasis on a family-oriented entertainment options. Second, the sample size of the locals was relatively small compared to that of the tourists. Future studies could use a larger sample size of locals to increase statistical power and obtain more reliable results. This will enhance the legitimacy of conducting a multigroup analysis instead of conducting two separate structural equation models for locals and tourists. Third, the populations in these cities were primarily Caucasians. Future studies can include cities that constitute diverse populations of residents and tourists. This will help city marketers to understand if the predictors of place dependence vary between different demographic groups (e.g., ethnic groups). In future studies, the same model could be applied to areas that do not have a distinct downtown but rather a vibrant secondary business district that attracts visitors who are primarily looking for shopping as a main activity. Future work could also try to understand place dependence by segmenting tourists into first-time tourists versus repeat tourists in order to better understand the factors leading to revisit intentions. Similarly, locals can be segmented in terms of their frequency of visiting the downtown. In addition, future studies could contrast different types of downtowns (e.g., historical downtowns versus modern downtowns) to determine if the type of downtown has an effect on place dependence and its antecedents and consequences.
The authors chose to use the original scale items developed by Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello (2009) with slight modification to account for the downtown setting. This brand experience scale has been verified for reliability and validity by number of studies measuring a product or service brand (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantonello 2009; Iglesias, Singh, and Batista-Foguet 2011; Nysveen, Pedersen, and Skard 2012; Zarantonello and Schmitt 2010). In this study, the authors wanted to determine the applicability of the scale to a place setting. Future studies may consider including measurement items reflecting the five senses, such as “This downtown is interesting to my visual sense” and “The sounds of this downtown are appealing my senses.” As another limitation related to scale, the composite reliabilities of revisit intention scale were very high (.90 for locals and .97 for tourists). These high reliabilities could have been inflated because the survey was conducted with a paper-and-pencil questionnaire (Peer and Gamliel 2011) and because the scale items were placed next to each other in the questionnaire.
Lastly, some of the original measures of brand experience could potentially be revised to increase clarity and consistency among respondents. For instance, one of the behavioral measurement items states that this downtown “results in bodily experiences.” This item may have led to some confusion or misinterpretation among respondents. Future studies should conduct a series of qualitative methods to refine the measurement items in the original scale (with special attention to the behavioral dimension) with a goal to eliminate any ambiguity. This will help to clarify the types of experiences elicited by each dimension of brand experience and increase the reliability and external validity of the scale.
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.
Author Biographies