Conceptualizing,Validating,and Managing Brand Equity for Tourist Satisfaction

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the roles of four distinct aspects of brand equity—perceived quality, brand awareness, brand loyalty, and brand image—in tourism satisfaction with regard to Taiwanese night markets. Regression analysis and structural equation models were used to test the hypotheses for a sample of 348 foreign tourists with experience in night market tourism. The results indicate that perceived quality is positively related to brand awareness, whereas brand awareness is positively related to brand loyalty and brand image. This finding confirms the positive relationship between brand loyalty/image and tourist satisfaction. The empirical evidence of the Sobel test following Baron and Kenny’s procedure supports the multiple mediation effects of brand awareness on perceived quality and brand loyalty/image and indicates that brand loyalty/image mediates the effects of brand awareness and satisfaction.

Keywords

brand equity perceived quality brand awareness brand loyalty brand image satisfaction

Introduction

Among the theoretical perspectives that focus on understanding the drivers of tourism destination attraction, brand equity and tourists’ satisfaction are highly influential. Despite different emphases in the tourism and hospitality industry, these two perspectives complement each other (H. B. Kim & Kim, 2005). Both address the creation of a set of unique and positive destination experiences in travel memory, but each focuses on different drivers of tourist preference and patronage.

The concept of brand equity primarily addresses all of the tangible and intangible factors that the business represents. Specifically, this research argues that brand equity provides the basis for tourists’ evaluations and is thus likely to influence behavior (Hsu, Oh, & Assaf, 2012). However, questions have arisen regarding how such tangible and intangible factors affect satisfaction, and the link between brand equity and foreign tourists’ perceptions has not been fully investigated in the tourism and hospitality literature. For example, H. B. Kim and Kim (2005) show that although the extant literature has employed numerous categories of local or global brands to measure brand equity, it is necessary to further discuss its various attributes (Horng, Liu, Chou, & Tsai, 2012).

According to the Tourism Bureau’s 2014 annual survey report, because of the fame and abundance of unique Taiwanese snacks, distinct traditions, and unique cultural characteristics, night markets have been the most popular tourism destination for foreign tourists for 10 years. The potential for developing night market tourism is evident in the rapid growth in the number of foreign tourists who visit night markets as well as in the reputation night markets have gained as tourism destinations in Taiwan. Although most tourism research scholars acknowledge that night market shopping, with its variety of traditional goods and opportunities to bargain, is a unique consumption experience (Hsieh & Chang, 2006), very little research in this literature stream has addressed how brand equity that provides the basis for Taiwanese night market shopping influences tourists’ satisfaction.

Brand equity has been empirically examined in the context of festival strategy (Lockshin & Spawton, 2001), and performance measures for destination marketing organizations (Pike, 2007). Although the above literature has made significant contributions, little research in this stream has examined the role of brand equity in determining foreign tourist satisfaction throughout the tourism experience. To address these unresolved questions, this study develops and empirically examines an integrated model that uniquely depicts destination brand equity as perceived by foreign tourists as a central mechanism that influences satisfaction. Figure 1 presents the main hypotheses of this study. In the following section, the theoretical foundations of brand equity and satisfaction are discussed to support the multiple mediated model proposed in this study. The next section discusses the methodology and presents the results. The article concludes with a discussion of the results, focusing on their implications for theory and practice.

Figure 1

Hypothesized Model: The Relationships Between Brand Equity and Satisfaction That Are Included in the Hypotheses.

Theoretical Background

Perceived Quality and Brand Awareness

Perceived quality refers to a customer’s judgment about the entire service process in terms of its excellence or superiority (C. F. Chen & Chen, 2010). Especially in the tourism consumption experience, perceived quality is based on the tourist’s subjective estimate of perceived quality rather than the objective or actual quality (Namkung & Jang, 2013). In terms of branding, perceived quality is an important part of brand value that reflects the tourist’s overall feeling about the destination brand (Keller, 2003). Thus, the level of perceived quality not only determines the level of brand equity value but also influences customer consumption behavior when facing multiple choices in real life (Lehmann & Srinivasan, 2014).

Although the tourism literature has explored the causal relationships of the influence of performance on overall satisfaction through perceived quality (Cole & Illum, 2006). Oh (2000) noted that perceived quality is central to the brand equity theory, which influences customers’ value evaluations and their purchase intentions. In empirical reviews of night market studies, S. H. Lee, Chang, Hou, and Lin (2008) found positive and significant relationships between foreign tourists’ senses, feelings, and images of service quality for the reputation of Taiwanese night markets. Hsieh and Chang (2006) also showed that the perceived quality of night market services and products influences tourists’ perceptions and choices. Thus, if a foreign tourist has a perception of a brand’s product or service quality, this perception can influence memories, and these memories can then lead to opinions of the destination (Y. Lee, Kim, Seock, & Cho, 2009). Therefore, a positive relationship between perceived quality and brand awareness has been found.

Hypothesis 1: The greater the perceived quality of night market tourism, the greater the positive brand awareness of Taiwan’s night markets for foreign tourists.

Brand Awareness, Loyalty, and Brand Image

Brand awareness is a reflection of a brand’s attraction that is present in the tourist’s mind. It is considered a main component of a brand’s effect in hospitality and tourism (H. B. Kim & Kim, 2005) and influences tourists’ satisfaction (Yuan & Jang, 2008). As Lin (2013) found through an investigation of the role of “brand equity” in Taiwanese tourism and hospitality, brand awareness is an important attribute that contributes to a visitor’s loyalty, images, and revisit intention. In the tourism industry, awareness of particular brands attracts more visitors because of well-developed associations and past consuming experience (Tam, 2008). Thus, if a visitor has a strong awareness of and association with a brand, he or she will likely have positive loyalty toward the brand. For example, Lockshin and Spawton (2001) examined a winery tourism brand and found that awareness of the winery brand made visitors highly likely to visit and influenced their next destination choice and revisit intention. Hsu (2014) used the model of customer-based hotel brand equity and confirmed a positive relationship between brand awareness and customers’ loyalty. In addition, previous studies suggest that brand awareness with respect to a particular product or service can significantly influence the value evaluation of the brand and has a positive relationship with loyalty (Oh, 2000). Brand awareness not only improves visitors’ value evaluation of tourism products and services directly but also exerts an influence on tourist loyalty.

Brand awareness is also likely to contribute to consumer perceptions of brand image and improvements to the brand’s perception and image (Keller, 1993). Accordingly, tourism industry managers aim to strengthen the destination brand and forge a unique awareness that will improve tourists’ image of the destination with the aim of turning tourists into loyal visitors.

Hypothesis 2a: The greater the brand awareness of night market tourism becomes, the greater the loyalty of foreign tourists to Taiwan’s night markets will be.

Hypothesis 2b: The greater the brand awareness of night market tourism, the greater the positive brand image of Taiwan’s night markets in foreign tourists’ minds.

Brand Loyalty, Image, and Satisfaction

Tourist loyalty is related to sequential purchase behavior, the proportion of patronage, and the probability of purchase for the tourism product or service (Gandhi-Arora & Shaw, 2002). Tourist loyalty toward products or destinations is often used to explain tourists’ satisfaction and willingness to make recommendations to other potential tourists (S. Lee, Jeon, & Kim, 2011). From another perspective, Chi and Qu (2008) suggested that tourist loyalty may lead to repeat purchases and positive word-of-mouth recommendations and ultimately influences destination choice and future travel intentions. It is believed that when a tourist has greater loyalty toward a destination, he or she will be more likely to include present and future images in the process of tourism decision making. Thus, tourist loyalty positively inﬂuences brand image and travel intention. Greater destination loyalty affects visitors’ intention to revisit.

The link between loyalty and postpurchase behavior has been well established by tourism studies (M. J. Kim, Lee, Chung, & Kim, 2014; Oppermann, 2000; Zhang, Fu, Cai, & Lu, 2014). In the tourism industry, there is empirical evidence that tourists’ destination image affects their subjective perception, behavior, and destination choice (Castro, Armario, & Ruiz, 2007). Tourists’ satisfaction is expected to change throughout the trip experience based on their images of destinations (Chi & Qu, 2008). It is believed that positive images with destination experiences and evaluations are likely to be included in future tourism decisions and intentions. Thus, tourists experience greater satisfaction when they have a positive assessment of the destination image (Chi & Qu, 2008). Therefore, the more positive a visitor’s image perceptions are for a destination, the more likely it is that high satisfaction will be maintained. Therefore, the following hypotheses related to destination loyalty, image, and satisfaction are proposed:

Hypothesis 3a: The greater brand loyalty is for night market tourism, the greater the satisfaction with Taiwan’s night market is for foreign tourists.

Hypothesis 3b: The more positive brand image is from night market tourism, the greater foreign tourists’ satisfaction is with Taiwan’s night market.

The Mediating Role of Brand Awareness

The earlier hypotheses link perceived quality and brand awareness. They also develop direct relationships among brand awareness, loyalty, and brand image. These hypotheses imply that perceived quality indirectly influences destination brand loyalty and brand image through brand awareness. From a marketing perspective, a product or service’s brand equity must provide incremental value, utility, and effects of brand knowledge on consumer response (Keller, 1993; Simon & Sullivan, 1993). Hence, brand equity is based on customer perceptions and ultimately influences behaviors that allow the brand to be enjoyed in sustainable and differentiated ways and to achieve competitive advantages relative to other products and services (H. B. Kim & Kim, 2005).

Brand equity development is a customer behavior and reaction process (Horng et al., 2012). For example, Konečnik and Gartner (2007) discovered that awareness most strongly influences the cognitive component of perceived quality and loyalty. Awareness implies the consumption experience of a tourism service or product. Therefore, a more realistic awareness of past consumption experiences that results from the perceived quality of a tourism product is likely to enhance a tourist’s loyalty due to multiple positive memories of the destination. For a destination to successfully develop brand equity, it must first improve tourists’ judgments of perceived quality because quality evaluations influence tourists’ valuation and awareness of the acceptance of the tourism product (Oh, 2000). In the tourist travel decision-making process, awareness is the first step in building and increasing the destination value and brand image before tourists consider a visit to a potential destination. Next in the brand equity development process, the established perceived quality strengthens a brand’s awareness in the tourist’s mind, which improves the brand image for a tourism destination. Therefore, based on past research and following destination brand equity theory, we predict that when perceived quality increases, positive awareness is stimulated, and both the brand loyalty and brand image of a destination are improved. Building on these clarifications, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Brand awareness positively mediates the link between perceived quality and brand loyalty/image.

The Mediating Role of Brand Loyalty and Image

Brand loyalty and brand image play a mediating role between brand awareness and foreign tourists’ satisfaction when visiting a Taiwanese night market. From a tourist satisfaction viewpoint, Boo, Busser, and Baloglu (2009) defined brand awareness as the creation of a unique brand that stands out in the target audience’s mind more than other brands in hospitality and tourism. In their study, the alternative terms of destination “name” and “characteristics” were used to measure brand awareness. They found that brand awareness generated greater confidence in a brand and greater willingness to pay a premium price for the brand (e.g., brand loyalty), which led to tourist satisfaction. In purchase decision making, brand awareness acts as a platform to allow customer identification and encourages symbolic interaction, emotional purchasing intention, and brand loyalty. Peter and Olson (2001) used Harley-Davidson buyers as a sample and showed that 94% of Harley-Davidson customers first create a unique brand and value for the motorbike in their mind and then remain loyal due to their high confidence in the brand. H. B. Kim and Kim (2005) also found that brand awareness is an important antecedent of customer brand loyalty that affects customers’ satisfaction at a luxury hotel. Thus, this study postulates that stronger tourist awareness of a night market tourism brand results in greater satisfaction through loyalty.

Some studies suggest an indirect relationship between awareness and consumer satisfaction in tourism and hospitality. For example, Yuan and Jang (2008) demonstrate that awareness can be an important predictor of tourists’ destination brand image and a link to their satisfaction. Boo et al. (2009) suggest that when customers are aware of a positive destination brand, they tend to have favorable images of the destination brand when planning a visit. Therefore, tourists’ awareness can be used to identify destination image and satisfaction. Bigne, Sanchez, and Sanchez (2001) show that similarity between tourists’ self-awareness of destination and image has a significant indirect effect on consumer satisfaction. Thus, the above discussion suggests that destination awareness affects tourist satisfaction primarily through loyalty and brand image. That is, brand awareness of a destination acts as a valuable catalyst to promote loyalty and positive image with tourists, which, in turn, enhances overall satisfaction. Thus, this study proposes that loyalty and brand image play a mediating role in the relationship between the independent variables of awareness and the dependent variable of foreign tourist satisfaction. Following this line of reasoning, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 5: Brand loyalty/image positively mediates the link between brand awareness and foreign tourist satisfaction.

Method

Sample

This research gathers its data from foreign tourists who have night market tourism experience in Taiwan. To fully understand the behavior of foreign tourists, this study first selected its main measurement dimensions based on the existing tourism and hospitality literature in English, modified and translated the survey items into Chinese through periodic meetings with other research partners, and invited experts who best fit the research purpose of this study. The survey instrument was then translated into English, Mandarin Chinese, and Japanese versions based on a suggestion by S. H. Lee et al. (2008) to investigate foreign tourists’ behaviors at Taiwanese night markets. After translation, the authors asked English and Japanese language teachers to check the language to ensure that the original meaning was maintained in all the language platforms. This study employed six research assistants and collected data from famous international night markets located in southern, northern, eastern, and central Taiwan from September 1 to November 21, 2014. Hsieh and Chang (2006) suggested collecting survey responses from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. to match the peak business hours of the night markets and to ensure the maximum sample population. We adopted a face-to-face method of data collection for two reasons. First, the face-to-face method increases the response rate. Second, face-to-face data collection helps clarify and validate the questionnaire, thus improving the quality of the surveys (Hsieh & Chang, 2006).

The sample consisted of 600 questionnaires distributed to international tourists in different night markets. The authors asked tourists in these regions to complete the questionnaires via convenience sampling. Approximately 368 questionnaires were returned. After discarding 20 surveys that had multiple missing values or were otherwise unusable, the remaining 348 surveys were usable and effective for further statistical analyses, yielding a 58% response rate. Among these participants, 52% (180) were male. In terms of education level, 52% (180) of the respondents had a university degree, 25% (86) respondents had completed senior high school, 22% (76) had a master’s degree, and 2% (6) had a senior high school degree. The participants were from different regions: 34% from China (118), 6% from Hong Kong/Macau (21), 7% from Japan (25), 5% from Korea (17), 14% from America/Canada (49), 4% from New Zealand/Australia (14), 5% from Europe (17), and 25% from other regions (87). The information on the participants’ ages was as follows: 38% were aged 21 to 30 (132), 30% were aged 31 to 40 (104), 24% were aged 41 to 50 (82), and 8% were aged 51 or older (28).

Variables

All variables included in the model were measured using multi-item scales designed to test all relevant domains of the construct. Thirty-one measures were used to capture the latent constructs. The items were measured on 7-point Likert-type scales where 1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neither disagree nor agree, and 7 = strongly agree. The variables are described below.

Brand loyalty refers to the perceived unique values that affect consumers’ behavior and attitudinal loyalty in purchase intentions. In line with this logic, this study adopts three items from Yang and Peterson’s (2004) study to measure tourists’ intentions to visit and willingness to recommend the Taiwanese night market to others. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the brand loyalty variable was .827.

Brand awareness precedes the building of brand equity. Consumers may link related brand knowledge with what they already know about a potential tourist destination, which constitutes brand equity (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993). Hence, brand awareness provides a function of the link between related brand knowledge and the brand name for tourists (Huang & Sarigöllü, 2012). This study adopts three items from prior studies (Boo et al., 2009; Konečnik, 2006; Konečnik & Gartner, 2007) to measure foreign tourists’ brand awareness of night market tourism in Taiwan. Cronbach’s alpha showed excellent internal consistency for these items, exceeding .811.

Brand image represents the customer’s beliefs and evaluative brand-related information, which may influence brand favoritism and comparisons to competitor brand messages (Iversen & Hem, 2008). Therefore, brand image is an important attribute and, as a concept, is an integral component of brand equity that helps determine buyers’ behavior (Burmann, Schaefer, & Maloney, 2008). This study adopts a 12-item scale from prior studies by Konečnik (2006) and Konečnik and Gartner (2007). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the brand image variable was .814, signifying excellent internal consistency.

Perceived quality represents the evaluation and perception of overall service quality rather than of individual elements of quality (Aaker & Keller, 1990). It refers to consumers’ “subjective judgment about a product or service’s quality and a brand’s overall superiority” (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 3). It is therefore based on consumers’ expectations and their subjective evaluations of actual service quality (Lewis & Chambers, 1989). This study adopts nine items used by Boo et al. (2009) and Konečnik and Gartner (2007). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the perceived quality variable was .883.

Satisfaction is considered the subjective evaluation of whether selected goods and services meet or exceed expectations (Oliver, 1999). This study adopts four items from studies by Y. G. Kim, Suh, and Eves (2010) to measure foreign tourists’ satisfaction with night market tourism. The Cronbach’s alpha statistic applied to these items exceeded .887.

Control Variables

Four control variables were also included in this analysis. First, gender was measured as a dichotomous variable that was coded 0 for female and 1 for male. Second, this study controlled for age using five dummy variables. Third, four dummy variables were used to control for tourists’ educational level. Finally, this study used eight dummy variables to control the region effects.

Results

The collected data were analyzed using STATA 10 and AMOS 18. We followed C. S. Chen and Liu’s (2012) suggestion to use STATA 10 to test the regression models and Y. Kim and Han’s (2010) guidelines for structural equation modeling in examining the hypotheses and theory development. Table 1 lists descriptive statistics, including mean, standard deviation (SD), intercorrelations, and Cronbach’s alpha for the measurement variables. The results of the main hypotheses based on regression analyses are presented in Tables 3 to 5. Multicollinearity does not present any problems for the analyses because the variance inflation factor scores are less than 3.86.

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, Normality, and Correlations

Variable	Mean	SD	AVE	CR	1	2	3	4	5	Normality Test
Variable	Mean	SD	AVE	CR	1	2	3	4	5	Sk^a	Ku^b	p
1. Satisfaction	5.131	1.095	.748	.922	(.887)					.001	.484	<.003
2. Brand loyalty	5.302	1.100	.744	.897	.799***	(.827)				.001	.983	<.006
3. Brand awareness	4.898	1.162	.732	.891	.642***	.580***	(.811)			.001	.279	<.005
4. Brand image	4.788	1.090	.575	.931	.436***	.423***	.473***	(.814)		.051	.710	<.013
5. Perceived quality	4.601	1.005	.594	.911	.500***	.419***	.523***	.703***	(.883)	.034	.014	<.012

Note: Correction with value are significant at p < .001. Values in the diagonal are Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each scale. AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability.

Skewness test.

Kurtosis test.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Direct Effect Tests

Model 1 in Table 2 shows the effect of perceived quality on brand awareness. In the model, perceived quality is positive and significant. Hypothesis 1 is strongly supported.

Table 2

The Mediating Effect of Brand Awareness Between Loyalty and Perceived Quality

Variables	Models				Sobel Test
	Brand Awareness	Brand Loyalty
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Hypothesis Test	H1		H2a	H4
Constant	.868	2.692***	2.285***	2.241***
Brand equity
Perceived quality	.737***	.434***		.051
Brand awareness			.551***	.5196***	9.819***
Brand image
Brand loyalty
Gender	−.184*	.357***	.257**	.261**
Age
21-30	.412	−.066	−.268	−.280
31-40	.455	.106	−.123	−.129
41-50	.279	−.172	−.301	−.317
51 and older	.364	−.656	−.836	−.845
Education
Senior high school	−.022	.397	.405	.409
University	.222	.481	.366	.365
Graduate or above	.049	.525	.504	.499
Regions	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
R²	.528	.284	.408	.409
R²_adj	.505	.249	.379	.379
F	23.14***	8.21***	14.28***	13.46***
Observations	348	348	348	348

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Hypotheses 2a and 2b predicted the direct effects of brand awareness on brand loyalty and image. Model 3 in Table 2 and Model 7 in Table 3 show positive and statistically significant coefficients for brand awareness for both attributes of brand equity (e.g., brand loyalty [2a] and brand image [2b]). In total, these results offer support for Hypotheses 2a and 2b.

Table 3

The Mediating Effect of Brand Awareness Between Image and Perceived Quality

Variables	Models				Sobel Test
	Brand Awareness	Brand Loyalty
	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7	Model 8
Hypothesis Test	H1		H2b	H4
Constant	.868	1.873**	2.094**	1.693*
Brand equity
Perceived quality	.737***	.419***		.207*
Brand awareness			.498***	.466***	8.067***
Brand image
Brand loyalty
Gender	−.184*	.010	.093	.049
Age
21-30	.412	−.394	−.368	−.480
31-40	.455	−.248	−.284	−.342
41-50	.279	−.210	−.119	−.268
51 and older	.364	−.326	−.317	−.402
Education
Senior high school	−.022	.338	.312	.342
University	.222	.512	.475	.466
Graduate or above	.049	.365	.403	.355
Regions	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
R²	.528	.251	.310	.328
R²_adj	.505	.215	.276	.293
F	23.14***	6.96***	9.30***	9.47
Observations	348	348	348	348

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Model 12 in Table 4 provides the results and shows that the coefficient of brand loyalty and image is both positive and significant. This finding provides support for Hypotheses 3a and 3b.

Table 4

The Mediating Effect of Loyalty/Perceived Quality Between Awareness and Satisfaction

Variables	Models					Sobel Test
	Brand Loyalty	Brand Image	Satisfaction
	Model 9	Model 10	Model 11	Model 12	Model 13
Hypothesis Test	H2a	H2b		H3a/b	H5
Constant	2.285***	2.094**	1.816**	.318	.267
Brand equity
Perceived quality
Brand awareness	.551***	.498***	.407***		.047
Brand image				.604**	.233***	7.296***
Brand loyalty				.739***	.634***	7.708***
Gender	.257**	.093	−.173	−.024	−.014
Age
21-30	−.268	−.368	.035	.434	.223
31-40	−.123	−.284	−.031	.239	.060
41-50	−.301	−.119	−.110	.265	.086
51 and older	−.836	−.317	−.334	.453	.211
Education
Senior high school	.405	.312	.167	−.184	−.104
University	.366	.475	.256	.000	.001
Graduate or above	.504	.403	.242	−.138	−.097
Regions	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
R²	.408	.310	.448	.668	.698
R²_adj	.379	.276	.421	.651	.682
F	14.28***	9.30***	16.79***	39.21***	42.41
Observations	348	348	348	348	348

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Indirect Effect Tests

For Hypothesis 4, three conditions must fit when testing the mediation effect (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Models 2 and 6 provide support for the first condition, whereas Model 1 provides support for the second condition. The third condition necessary for mediation is presented in Models 4 and 8, which show the effects of perceived quality on tourists’ loyalty and image through brand awareness of night markets. As observed in these models, when perceived quality is controlled, brand awareness maintains a positive and significant effect on tourists’ loyalty and image, thus confirming the third condition. The confirmation of all three conditions therefore supports the mediation effect proposed by Hypothesis 4. Sobel’s (1982) test was used to further probe the nature of this mediation. The final column of Table 2 and Table 3 confirm the full mediation of brand awareness. Sobel’s (1982) test further supports the prior results but offers a more fine-grained understanding.

Similar steps were followed to test Hypothesis 5 in Table 3. Model 11 provides support for the first condition, and Models 9 and 10 confirm the second condition. Model 13 is provided to test the mediation effects of loyalty and image between brand awareness and tourist satisfaction. The results of the Sobel test are provided in the final column to support the prior tests in Models 9 through Model 13. Thus, this study concludes that Hypotheses 4 and 5 are supported and that the nature of the full mediation effect is supported.

Additional Tests for Robustness

As suggested by Hayes (2009), this article extended the analyses concerning brand equity to foreign tourists’ satisfaction using structural equation modeling to verify the direct and indirect effects (significance) of the variables. The value of χ²/df was 1.61 (<3, the suggested value), the values of the other indices (e.g., CFI, AGFI, GFI) also met the accepted level of .90 (Byrne, 2001), and the RMSEA value was less than .08, which represents a “reasonable fit” (Kline, 2005).

Further empirical analysis shows the path diagram of the model of foreign tourists’ satisfaction in Figure 2. The results of the hypothesis testing are shown in Table 5. The findings associated with each of these indices revealed findings consistent with those previously reported. That is, these results support the robustness of the prediction of initial findings and indicate that foreign tourists’ perceptions of brand equity do affect their satisfaction in Taiwanese night market tourism.

Figure 2

Standardized Path Estimates of the Hypothesized Model

Table 5

Standardized Maximum-Likelihood Parameter Estimates

Path	Coefficient	t Value
Perceived quality → Brand awareness	.704***	18.45
Brand awareness → Brand loyalty	.581***	13.29
Brand awareness → Brand image	.729***	19.82
Brand loyalty → Satisfaction	.675***	19.85
Brand image → Satisfaction	.259***	7.63
Goodness-of-fit statistics: χ²/df = 1.61 (p < .001), GFI = .89, AGFI = .90, NFI = .91, RMSEA = .074
R²_(Awareness) = .528
R²_(Loyalty) = .408
R²_(Image) = .310
R²_{(Satisfaction)} = .668

Note: GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; NFI = normalized fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion and Conclusion

The findings of this article provide substantial support for the multi-mediated model that has been theoretically developed. The results show that brand awareness, loyalty, and image fully mediate the relationship between perceived quality and satisfaction for night market tourism. Specifically, via a series of analyses, the results show that (1) the perceived quality of night market tourism affects foreign tourists’ brand awareness of Taiwan’s night markets, (2) the brand awareness of foreign tourists affects their brand loyalty and image of night market tourism, (3) the brand loyalty and images held by foreign tourists affect tourists’ satisfaction with night market tourism, and (4) the critical mediation effects of brand awareness, loyalty, and image are substantiated in a complete model.

Practical Implications

The present study suggests several unique practical implications and ideas for marketing strategy. First, to build a destination’s image among tourists, managers should adopt an appropriate marketing strategy to promote the destination to increase the brand’s presence in tourists’ minds. Ways to accomplish this include the following: providing useful information, improving the quality of the website, or encouraging tourists to share their tourism experiences (Pan, Xiang, Law, & Fesenmaier, 2011). Increasing the perceived quality and positive image of night market tourism among foreign tourists encourages them to rate night markets highly as destinations so that their brand awareness of the destination is ultimately enhanced. Second, greater tourist loyalty and an improved image among tourists can more effectively utilize Taiwanese night markets’ brand equity to achieve greater improvements in satisfaction. The results suggest that to attract foreign tourists, managers should focus on increased customer loyalty and image improvement activities designed to increase tourists’ satisfaction, such as providing comfortable facilities, an attractive shopping environment and a safety infrastructure. Third, the findings provide some meaningful implications for night market managers. Although prior studies of brand equity have shown that it has direct effects on tourism intention and satisfaction, this study offers a more complete understanding of how these tourism brand equity drivers work together to affect tourists’ satisfaction. The results suggest that night markets should continue to introduce innovative and creative services or products to improve foreign visitors’ perceptions and positive evaluations of night markets, thereby increasing visitors’ willingness to share recommendations with friends and improving the overall image of the Taiwanese night market’s brand equity. Finally, as mentioned by Horng et al. (2012), tourism managers need to analyze the process that builds brand equity. Insights into the importance of the brand equity building process suggest that tourism managers should focus on identifying a suitable and critical destination brand strategy that competes against other destinations. This analysis indicated that the brand loyalty of destinations and brand image can improve overall satisfaction and strengthen the brand equity of night market tourism destinations. Thus, developing and reinforcing a favorable, strong, and unique destination image is important for increasing tourists’ value perceptions (Gómez, Lopez, & Molina, 2015). Tourism managers are advised to develop brand equity by crafting promotion strategies, investments, and innovations to improve the image of night market tourism destinations in Taiwan. This development will increase regional employment and economic profit and will attract more domestic and international tourists.

Theoretical Implications

The support of brand equity theory provides several contributions to the tourism literature. First, these results contribute to the growing stream of work related to tourism brand equity management. A major untested assumption within the tourism literature stream is that multi-mediation relationships affect the process of increasing tourist satisfaction. Such relationships have not previously been substantiated, however, and the validity of the “strategy as brand equity process,” or brand management, is questionable. This research resolves much of the discussion related to that process. According to the results, we can more confidently state that a destination’s brand equity is an important factor in increasing tourist satisfaction. Therefore, this study provides an enriched understanding of brand equity evolution processes, depicted as a set of complex affective mechanisms that work simultaneously for foreign tourists and in functionally identical directions.

Next, this research contributes to the existing literature by offering important insights that enhance tourism management scholars’ understanding of tourist behavior and brand equity perception of the night market experience in Taiwan. Tourism management scholars, who have been challenged to move beyond brand equity and relationships (Horng et al., 2012), could begin by more directly considering how specific attributes of brand equity influence specific tourist behavior. In this way, future work could build on Horng et al.’s (2012) approach of linking tourist behavior and various brand equity management strategies. For another stream of research on attracting foreign tourists, this article provides a clearer understanding of the different role and interrelationships of brand equity that is important for further advances in this area. Based on this research, it is apparent that a more vivid conceptualization of brand equity is necessary to accurately model ways to attract and measure foreign tourists and their travel satisfaction.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

These contentions raise opportunities for future research. This study focuses on foreign tourists and night market tourism, a fairly niche destination in Taiwan. There is much more work to be conducted in this line of inquiry, including the exploration of resident visitors or the perspectives of domestic tourists in the interrelationships of brand equity in night market tourism. As mentioned above, some of that work is being conducted and is showing promising results, especially in the measurement of specific tourism events. Although the sample size of foreign tourists is generally appropriate, it may be somewhat small regarding the number of variables used. Additionally, this study used the specific case of night market tourism. Although the results are robust, different dimensions of brand equity investigation are needed when analyzing different types of cultural goods. Second, most of the indicators used to measure night market brand equity for foreign tourists were adapted from western tourism literature. However, due to cultural differences, additional dimensions of brand equity may potentially relevant for customers’ behavior. Therefore, more attributes of brand equity should be considered (Toma, Dubrow, & Hartley, 2005). Finally, the sample used in this study focused on the night market. The characteristics of brand equity may vary based on destination. Although the results of this study are promising, samples from other tourism destinations with different perspectives may make our results more generalizable.

In conclusion, our empirical results offer additional support for the growing stream of research pertaining to multiprocess stages of brand equity models and yield opportunities to advance the application of brand equity in tourism and hospitality studies. The authors hope that other studies will adopt this approach and perspective to further our understanding of the drivers of tourist satisfaction.

Footnotes

Chih-Hsing Liu, PhD (phd20110909@gmail.com), is an associate professor in the Department of Leisure & Recreation Management, Ming Chuan University, Gui Shan District, Taoyuan County, Taiwan. Yen-Po Fang, PhD (Corresponding author. e-mail: pfang@mail.mcu.edu.tw, Tel.: +886 972199399), is an assistant professor in the Department of Leisure & Recreation Management, Ming Chuan University, Gui Shan District, Taoyuan County, Taiwan.

References

Aaker

D. A.

(1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review, 38(3), 102-120.

Aaker

D. A.

Keller

K. L.

(1990). Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27-41.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bigne

J. E.

Sanchez

M. I.

Sanchez

(2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behaviour: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22, 607-616.

Boo

Busser

Baloglu

(2009). A model of customer-based brand equity and its application to multiple destinations. Tourism Management, 30, 219-231.

Burmann

Schaefer

Maloney

(2008). Industry image: Its impact on the brand image of potential employees. Journal of Brand Management, 15(3), 157-176.

Byrne

B. M.

(2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Castro

C. B.

Armario

E. M.

Ruiz

D. M.

(2007). The influence of market heterogeneity on the relationship between a destination’s image and tourists’ future behavior. Tourism Management, 28, 175-187.

Chen

C. F.

Chen

F. S.

(2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31, 29-35.

10.

Chen

C. S.

Liu

C. H.

(2012). Impact of network position and knowledge diversity on knowledge creation: The empirical setting of research communities. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 29, 297-309.

11.

Chi

C. G. Q.

(2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism Management, 29, 624-636.

12.

Cole

S. T.

Illum

S. F.

(2006). Examining the mediating role of festival visitors’ satisfaction in the relationship between service quality and behavioral intentions. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12, 160-173.

13.

Gandhi-Arora

Shaw

R. N.

(2002). Visitor loyalty in sport tourism: An empirical investigation. Current Issues in Tourism, 5(1), 45-53.

14.

Gómez

Lopez

Molina

(2015). A model of tourism destination brand equity: The case of wine tourism destinations in Spain. Tourism Management, 51, 210-222.

15.

Hayes

A. F.

(2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.

16.

Horng

J. S.

Liu

C. H.

Chou

H. Y.

Tsai

C. Y.

(2012). Understanding the impact of culinary brand equity and destination familiarity on travel intentions. Tourism Management, 33, 815-824.

17.

Huang

Sarigöllü

(2012). How brand awareness relates to market outcome, brand equity, and the marketing mix. Journal of Business Research, 65(1), 92-99.

18.

Hsieh

A. T.

Chang

(2006). Shopping and tourist night markets in Taiwan. Tourism Management, 27, 138-145.

19.

Hsu

C. H.

(2014). Brand evaluation of foreign versus domestic luxury hotels by Chinese travelers. Journal of China Tourism Research, 10(1), 35-50.

20.

Hsu

C. H.

Assaf

A. G.

(2012). A customer-based brand equity model for upscale hotels. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 81-93.

21.

Iversen

N. M.

Hem

L. E.

(2008). Provenance associations as core values of place umbrella brands: A framework of characteristics. European Journal of Marketing, 42, 603-626.

22.

Keller

K. L.

(1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22.

23.

Keller

K. L.

(2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 595-600.

24.

Kim

H. B.

Kim

W. G.

(2005). The relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants. Tourism Management, 26, 549-560.

25.

Kim

M. J.

Lee

C. K.

Chung

Kim

W. G.

(2014). Factors affecting online tourism group buying and the moderating role of loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 53, 380-394. doi:10.1177/0047287513497837

26.

Kim

Han

(2010). Intention to pay conventional-hotel prices at a green hotel: A modification of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 997-1014.

27.

Kim

Y. G.

Suh

B. W.

Eves

(2010). The relationships between food-related personality traits, satisfaction, and loyalty among visitors attending food events and festivals. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 216-226.

28.

Kline

T. J.

(2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Konečnik

(2006). Croatian-based brand equity for Slovenia as a tourism destination. Economic and Business Review, 8, 83-108.

30.

Konečnik

Gartner

W. C.

(2007). Customer-based brand equity for a destination. Annals of Tourism Research, 34, 400-421.

31.

Lee

Jeon

Kim

(2011). The impact of tour quality and tourist satisfaction on tourist loyalty: The case of Chinese tourists in Korea. Tourism Management, 32, 1115-1124.

32.

Lee

S. H.

Chang

S. C.

Hou

J. S.

Lin

C. H.

(2008). Night market experience and image of temporary residents and foreign visitors. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2, 217-233.

33.

Lee

Kim

Seock

Y. K.

Cho

(2009). Tourists’ attitudes towards textiles and apparel-related cultural products: A cross-cultural marketing study. Tourism Management, 30, 724-732.

34.

Lehmann

D. R.

Srinivasan

(2014). Assessing brand equity through add-on sales. Customer Needs and Solutions, 1(1), 68-76.

35.

Lewis

R. C.

Chambers

R. E.

(1989). Marketing leadership in hospitality. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

36.

Lin

Y. C.

(2013). Evaluation of co-branded hotels in the Taiwanese market: The role of brand familiarity and brand fit. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25, 346-364.

37.

Lockshin

Spawton

(2001). Using involvement and brand equity to develop a wine tourism strategy. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13(1), 72-81.

38.

Namkung

Jang

S. S.

(2013). Effects of restaurant green practices on brand equity formation: Do green practices really matter. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 85-95.

39.

(2000). The effect of brand class, brand awareness, and price on customer value and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24, 136-162.

40.

Oliver

R. L.

(1999). Whence consumer loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-44.

41.

Oppermann

(2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 78-84.

42.

Pan

Xiang

Law

Fesenmaier

D. R.

(2011). The dynamics of search engine marketing for tourist destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 50, 365-377.

43.

Peter

J. P.

Olson

J. C.

(2001). Consumer behavior. Chicago, IL: Irwin.

44.

Pike

(2007). Destination marketing organizations. New York, NY: Routledge.

45.

Simon

C. J.

Sullivan

M. W.

(1993). The measurement and determinants of brand equity: A financial approach. Marketing Science, 12(1), 28-52.

46.

Sobel

M. E.

(1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-312.

47.

Taiwan Tourism Bureau. (2014). 2013 Annual survey report of inbound traveler consumption and tendency. Taipei: Taiwan Tourism Bureau.

48.

Tam

J. L. M.

(2008). Brand familiarity: Its effects on satisfaction evaluations. Journal of Services Marketing, 22(1), 3-12.

49.

Toma

J. D.

Dubrow

Hartley

(2005). The uses of institutional culture: Strengthening identification and building brand equity in higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 31, 1-105. doi:10.1002/aehe.3102

50.

Yang

Peterson

R. T.

(2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of switching costs. Psychology and Marketing, 21, 799-822.

51.

Yuan

J. J.

Jang

S. S.

(2008). The effects of quality and satisfaction on awareness and behavioral intentions: Exploring the role of a wine festival. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 279-288.

52.

Zeithaml

V. A.

(1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2-22.

53.

Zhang

Cai

L. A.

(2014). Destination image and tourist loyalty: A meta-analysis. Tourism Management, 40, 213-223.