Rio 2016 Olympic Games: Brand and the reciprocal effects of touristic destinations

Abstract

This study analyzes the effect of Brazil's national tourism brand on the image of Rio de Janeiro as the host city of the 2016 Olympic Games, and the reciprocal effect of Rio de Janeiro on Brazil, considering both as tourist destinations. A quantitative study was employed using structured questionnaires, with a sample of foreign respondents (n = 340) and a simultaneous equation method. A positive reciprocal effect was found. In general, the perception of a country as a tourist destination influences destinations within that country. However, the Brazil destination brand image did not influence Rio. This situation was proved to be an exception to the rule, the sports mega-event context probably contributing to the result.

Keywords

Brand effect reciprocal brand effect tourist destination sports mega-event Rio 2016 Olympic Games

Introduction

How individuals perceive a place is central to the process of choosing travel destinations (Chang et al., 2015; Deng and Li, 2013; Walker et al., 2013). An attractive image greatly influences travel decisions. Thus, understanding the determinants and dynamics of image formation is vital for destination management, since such factors can project an image that attracts the tourism flow desired.

The realization of a sports mega-event is a critical factor that greatly influences the images of the locality that hosts an event, especially because of the international visibility arising from it (Ferrari and Guala, 2017; Ferreira and Giraldi 2020; Ferreira et al., 2018; Hahm et al., 2019; Lai, 2018; Tasci et al., 2019). An event and the context of its realization have been highlighted as important influencers on the images of the location that hosts it, generally in a positive way (Knott et al., 2015; Newland and Yoo, 2020; Singh and Zhou, 2016; Ulvnes and Solberg, 2016). The context of a sports mega-event involves the choice of the location, the preparation, the tourist flow that the event generates, and the media impact. According to Gibson et al. (2008), there is strategic leverage for images that are shown to the world in conjunction with an event (pre, during, and after); the level of awareness of a particular city and/or country can be high, which in turn can boost visitation at some point in the future, or at the least be used to educate the world about such a location.

Thus, that this kind of event impacts, in some way, its host city or its host country image is a fact. This has been widely examined by sports mega-event and tourist destination image literature (Arnegger and Herz, 2016; Knott et al., 2015; Ladhari and Souiden, 2020; Newland and Yoo, 2020; Singh and Zhou, 2016; Ulvnes and Solberg, 2016). The goal of this work is to go beyond these studies and investigate the relationships of influence between the destination images of a host city and its host country, considering the sports mega-event context. We consider this goal to be an extant gap in the literature.

Anchored in recent calls for more research on sports mega-events in emerging economies, which often face myriad paradoxes, including image (Muller, 2017; Tasci et al., 2019), this article examines the effect of Brazil's national tourism brand image (e.g. Giraldi et al., 2011; Mariutti et al., 2013, Pérez-Nebra and Torres, 2010; Rezend-Parker et al., 2003) on Rio de Janeiro's image as a host city for the 2016 Olympic Games. It further considers the reciprocal effect of Rio de Janeiro on Brazil's image as a whole. Because few events have been held in developing countries, the literature on mega-events in this context, including studies about destination images, is still small compared to developing countries. Hahm et al. (2018), for example, found that Brazil's image did not change after the Olympics as much as was expected. Besides Brazil, the authors investigated destination image cobranding with England, Russia, and Greece, from the perspective of whether an Olympic event could improve the image of a country. With the exception of England, the other three countries would be beneficiaries. Heslop et al. (2013) raise doubts about the real benefits of realizing mega sporting events in emerging nations. According to the authors, many emerging nations have risked betting on holding sport mega-events in an attempt to improve their worldwide reputation and obtain recognition. However, the authors highlight that there is limited evidence of the positive image impacts of countries related to their products and appeal as a tourist destination, which also includes the relationship between a country's destination image and its host city.

Therefore, this paper draws on the perspective of destination image as an influencing factor of another destination image, considering the same geographical context (Herrero et al., 2017). This is an area that has been understudied by tourist destination image literature, especially in the case of smaller destinations, such as cities, and their influence over their national destination (Santos and Giraldi, 2017). In this phenomenon, known as the reciprocal effect (Aaker and Keller, 1990; Park et al., 1991), a lower unit image is transferred by a process of induction to higher geographical units.

In this study, the brand and reciprocal effects are outlined within the context of the Olympic Games. Through considerable financial and resource investments, large events are often used strategically to influence the image of host countries and cities, sometimes achieving substantial results (Hahm et al., 2019). They are specifically targeted to increase tourism activity in the host city/country, enhance the image of the place as a tourist destination, and create an appeal for potential inward investment both nationally and globally (e.g. Hahm et al., 2019, Knott et al., 2015; Nadeau et al., 2008; Singh and Zhou, 2016; Ulvnes and Solberg, 2016). Considering the sports mega-events context, the high visibility that a host city receives in respect of its image can perhaps carry over to the national destination tourist brand.

The context of a sports mega-event differs from traditional image studies as, in terms of proportion, the potential effect on a single city is huge. This is a key reason why these relationships need to be investigated. Therefore, this study contributes by filling a gap in the sports mega-event literature, which tends to focus on the relationship between event and national destination, and not on the host city, its national destination, and the opposite. Knowing the national destination potential of influence on the destinations that are part of its territory, as well as the reverse, can contribute to the development of more integrative and promising marketing policies of such destinations, including the hosts of new mega-events. This kind of marketing policy is emphasized by Santos and Giraldi (2017) who defend the view that the importance of information about a destination not only affects this very location, but also influences other destinations in the country and its national tourist image as a whole. Recognizing not only the importance of the event image but also the image of the city as a mega-event host can contribute to a given country's national destination marketing policy. Especially because a nation's brand legacy does not occur automatically, more studies are needed with interested parties from sports mega-event host nations (Knott et al., 2015).

The Olympic Games concentrate more investment on the image of a single city than any other event. Therefore, significant changes in the host city image brought about by the Olympic Games have the potential to reciprocally influence a national brand image. On the other hand, investing heavily in a city's image comes with the potential of reducing the brand effect, to the extent that the city image is viewed as independent from a country's destination image. Therefore, examining the brand and reciprocal effects in the context of the Olympic Games allows us to understand these phenomena within a situation that is relevant to tourism destination management.

In the current study, the images of Brazil and Rio de Janeiro in the context of the Olympic Games were measured using a cognitive and affective destination image scale. The bidirectional relationship between the images of both geographical units was tested using a simultaneous equation model.

Tourism destination brand and image

Even though brands were originally created to identify products and services, they have recently been applied to geographical units of different scales, such as cities, regions, and countries (Anholt, 2010; Kotler and Gertner, 2004; Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002).

The brand of a city, region, or country is associated with various aspects related to its image, including political, economic, social, environmental, historical, and cultural dimensions (Fetscherin, 2010). This incomparable, multidimensional set of aspects differentiates one place from others (Dinnie, 2008). The brand of a city, region, or country may be used specifically to attract consumers, companies, and/or residents. To improve this power of attraction, a brand should be administrated consciously and strategically, using the best marketing tools (Kotler and Gertner, 2004), without losing sight of the objectives and potential social consequences.

Although a destination can be a country, it is necessary to differentiate the country brand from the destination brand. The country brand involves the whole image of a country, including political, economic, social, environmental, historical, and cultural aspects (Fetscherin, 2010). The destination brand encompasses a set of marketing activities that support the creation of a name, symbol, logo, wordmark, or other graphics that are easily identified. This is different from the destination itself, which conveys the expectation of an unforgettable travel experience, serving to consolidate and reinforce the emotional connection between a visitor and a destination and to reduce consumption research costs and risk perception (Gartner and Ruzzier, 2011). Thus, destination brands reinforce the characteristics of localities as tourist destinations. In this study, both Brazil and Rio were evaluated from a tourist destination point of view.

The most significant challenges in creating a destination brand are the need to understand the identity of a place and recognize the key attributes that characterize it (Campelo et al., 2014; Fetscherin, 2010; Morgan and Pritchard, 2014; Stepchenkova, 2015; Zhang et al., 2016). Ultimately, creating a destination brand involves a set of actions that serve to create a destination image that positively influences consumer choice (Gartner and Ruzzier, 2011). This destination image is formed through cognition and reasoning and is influenced by affective and emotional factors derived from various sources of information (Nghiêm-Phú, 2014).

Brand and reciprocal effect

Considering tourist destination brands, the effect of a larger geographical unit image over a smaller one constitutes the brand effect. A larger geographic unit image works as an umbrella brand (Cubillo et al., 2006; Mossberg and Kleppe, 2005), or parent brand. Sometimes known as a parent destination, this image can influence the destination brands within its remit.

The reciprocal brand effect works in the opposite way to the brand effect and refers to the influence a branded product has on consumer perceptions of the brand itself (Aaker and Keller, 1990). It is also known as the spillover effect, reciprocal spillover effect, or feedback effect. The majority of studies in this area focus on the consequences of extending a parent brand to new products (e.g. Balachander and Ghose, 2003; Childs, 2017; Joshi and Yadav, 2017; Knapp et al., 2014; Lee and Lockshin, 2012; Martinez and Chernatony, 2004; Zimmer and Bhat, 2004).

Attributing a brand to a product may have a positive or negative reciprocal effect (Childs, 2017). In some cases, the power of the brand is strengthened by its association with a particular product, service, or place. Balachander and Ghose (2003), for instance, identify the positive reciprocal effects of daughter brand advertising on the likelihood of parent brand choice. Knapp et al. (2014) test the reciprocal effect of film adaptations of book brands, verifying that a parent brand experiences greater sales if an extension product receives strong marketing support and is successful.

However, it is also important to note some cases where the result is negative, and a brand's power is reduced due to consumer perceptions of subsidiary brands associated with it. Chen and Chen (2000), for example, indicate that when an extended product is not received positively, the parent brand suffers, and is associated with less favorable beliefs and emotions. John et al. (1998) argue that a brand/product extension strategy may harm a parent brand's image, especially when a product is inconsistent with its brand image or fails to meet consumer expectations.

Another area of research analyzes the reciprocal effect in the context of geographical unit brands, with a focus on country brands. Initially, these studies addressed the reciprocal effect of physical products on the brand image of a country (Clifton, 2014; Han, 1990; Magnusson et al., 2014). Lee and Lockshin (2012) present a different perspective, examining the effect of consumer attitude toward a country's products on its desirability as a tourism destination. The results show that positive beliefs about its products favorably affect the image of a given country as a tourist destination. Santos and Giraldi (2017) offer a further perspective, evaluating the effect of attitude toward countries as tourism destinations, on the power of a national tourism brand. This research shows that destinations that are perceived positively tend to strengthen a country's destination image as a whole, and consequently increase interest in other destinations within that country.

On the other hand, destinations that are perceived less positively, or even negatively, reduce a national brand's power to attract tourists. Based on the above studies, the authors recommend the need for a strategic management plan focusing on communicating country destinations, prioritizing the information that strengthens a country brand. In this way, maximizing the total effect of communication actions will directly favor the most attractive destinations, while indirectly benefiting others. However, the risk of disclosing less attractive destinations should be noted. While this may be positive for a destination itself, it may negatively affect its country's image as a whole.

Destination image and the sports mega-event context

The analysis of this study is focused on the Olympic Games context, a sports mega-event with a huge potential to affect a host city's image (e.g. Kim et al., 2014; Knott et al., 2015; Lai, 2018). The event is associated with a specific city within a country, although some secondary activities may occur in other cities.

Studies argue that the benefits of carrying out sports mega-events justify the high investments they demand (Lee et al., 2005). The authors highlight that hosting sports mega-events not only increases tourist revenues, income, employment, and government revenues, but also increases awareness and knowledge of the country or region involved.

In an experiment verifying its image before and after the Olympic Games in Brazil, Tasci et al. (2019) found that there was no difference from the image of its country and concluded that this was due to the negative media about the political and environmental problems of a given nation before the games. Kenyon and Bodet (2018) investigated the London 2012 Olympics and the impressions of residents. Despite previous concerns regarding the hosting of the event and its potential to negatively impact the city's image, respondents perceived the Olympics as a largely successful enterprise.

Sport can be a powerful agent for the creation of images, and the re-imaging and branding of places, especially through the realization of mega-events (Knott et al., 2015). Also, quality perceptions of a sports mega-event can positively influence a host destination image (Moon et al., 2011). Kim et al. (2019) found that changes in a destination's image vary, depending on the sport event. In the case of the 2006 World Cup in Germany, there was an improvement in the country's image as a result of the experience; in particular, respondents thought of Germany as a less expensive, friendlier, and more multicultural place after the event (Florek et al., 2008).

Within the universe of sports mega-events, in terms of impacts concerning the image of a host destination, the Soccer World Cup and the Summer Olympic Games are the most important (Gibson et al., 2008). Davies (2009) and Pillay et al. (2009) also emphasized that there are only two real sports mega-events: the FIFA Soccer World Cup and the Summer Olympic Games. The authors take the scale of media interest as a basis for their conclusion and highlight the fact that the two mega-events benefit from extensive global coverage, with the sale of broadcasting rights.

Thus, a host city is widely publicized in the media in that context. Individuals across the world receive a lot of information about the city, forming sharper and more accessible images of it in their minds. In this context, a country's brand effect on the city may dwindle in importance. Individuals no longer rely on a country's image to form an impression of a given city, and consequently, the city is seen independently.

The Olympic Games provides an interesting opportunity to study the brand effect, due to the extreme conditions it presents. The image of the host city is strengthened to such an extent that it reduces the brand effect, which may disappear or become imperceptible. This is the first hypothesis of our study.

In general, national destinations are better known than the cities and regions within their territory (Herrero et al., 2017). For example, because Brazil is a national destination which, despite some ambiguity, projects positive aspects in terms of image (Mariutti et al., 2013; Rezend-Parker et al., 2003), as a rule, it may have a positive influence on the image of the brand in Rio de Janeiro. However, considering the sports mega-event context, where Rio's visibility was huge as the host city of the 2016 Olympic Games, Brazil may not have influence. This is the first hypothesis.

H1: In the context of the Olympic Games, a host country's destination image does not influence a host city's destination image.

Furthermore, as a host city's image is reinforced by the Olympic Games (Ferreira et al., 2018; Lai, 2018; Singh and Zhou, 2016) it plays a greater part in the composition of a country's image. Considering that Rio de Janeiro hosted a sports mega-event that had a positive image and that allowed wide visibility for the cities that embraced it (Knott et al., 2015), it is believed that there is a positive overflow of host city image to the image of the parent brand, Brazil. Based on this assumption, it is believed that the reciprocal effect (Aaker and Keller, 1990) can occur. In this case, there is a special context: Rio de Janeiro hosted the 2016 Olympic Games and the investigation of its image is from this perspective. The Olympic Games, in itself, is an event that has a positive image (Kaplanidou, 2006; Lee et al., 2013), and whose venues often take advantage of the overflow of that image for themselves, causing improvement in their respective images.

In addition, being the host city for a sports mega-event puts it in a very high international profile. Thus, considering that Rio de Janeiro hosted a sports mega-event that has a positive image and that allows wide visibility for the cities that receive it (Knott et al., 2015), it is believed that there is a positive overflow of the image of a city on the image of the parent brand of tourism described in hypothesis two.

H2: The more positive a Olympic Games host city destination image, the more positive a host country destination image.

The first two hypotheses of the study focus on the bidirectional effects between the destinations images of a country and the host city of the Olympic Games. The analysis of these effects was carried out using a simultaneous equations model, with the aid of instrumental variables. These are explanatory variables that are related to one of the main variables, but unconnected to the others.

The explanatory instrumental variables relate to the images of a country and a city, and their respective cognitive and affective dimensions. Thus, we propose four complementary hypotheses that, although they are not the core of this study, will further our understanding of H1 and H2.

H3: The more positive the cognition of a country, the more positive the resulting image.

H4: The more positive the affective cognition of a country, the more positive the resulting image.

H5: The more positive the cognition of the host city, the more positive the resulting image.

H6: The more positive the affective cognition of the host city, the more positive the resulting image.

The six hypotheses of the study, including the two main hypotheses (H1 and H2), and the four complementary hypotheses (H3–H6) are represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Method

Brand effect and reciprocal effect describe opposed relationships between the same elements. The brand effect is the influence that a brand image has on a product, service, or place, while the reciprocal effect refers to the ways products, services, or places affect the brand itself. The bidirectional aspect of these effects can make them difficult to identify and measure empirically. A simple correlation between a brand image and branded products does not identify the source of these effects. A methodological solution is to use the experimental method, wherein one variable is manipulated by the researcher, causing a variation in a second variable.

Another solution, less widely used in the literature, is the use of statistical techniques that allow for the bidirectional analysis of the effects using instrumental variables. The advantage of this technique is that it uses data that has not been manipulated by the researcher. It, therefore, allows the brand and reciprocal effects to be examined in real situations, rather than simulated experiments. This method was employed by Lane and Jacobson (1997) to analyze the attitudes of 209 undergraduates toward four known consumer brands and two hypothetical extensions of each brand. The effects the brand had on the extension products and the extension products’ reciprocal effects on the brand were analyzed through a model of simultaneous equations, using the level of congruence between brand and extension as the instrumental variable.

The hypotheses were tested using data collected through structured questionnaires. The six variables in the conceptual model (Figure 1) were measured considering the context of the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro. Brazil and Rio were evaluated from a tourist destination point of view. The two main variables—the destination image of Rio de Janeiro as host city of the Olympic Games, and the image of Brazil as a tourist destination—were measured using 7 point Likert scales, ranging from “extremely negative” to “extremely positive.”

The cognitive and affective dimensions of the country and the images of its cities were measured using scales with multiple items. The scale for the cognitive dimension comprised 11 items related to judgments about tourist attractions, services, and general infrastructure following the scale proposed by Baloglu and McCleary (1999). The affective dimension scale was composed of 8 items, related to feelings and emotions, in line with the scale proposed by Russell and Pratt (1980).

Sampling and data collection

The questionnaires were applied to a non-probabilistic sample of 340 students from a North American university (University of Florida). The interviewees were from various backgrounds but excluded Brazilians and Olympic attendants. This type of sample, students, is widely used in the literature for studies on destination image (Campo and Alvarez, 2010; Gibson et al., 2008; Nghiêm-Phú, 2014; Um and Crompton, 1990). In addition, in image studies, such as Zhang et al. (2016), it is common to use international samples comprising various nationalities. The questionnaires were sent by email and delivered in person between April and June 2017.

Data analysis

The general evaluations of Rio de Janeiro as the host city of the Olympic Games, and other Brazilian tourist destinations, were simultaneously modeled, examining their bidirectional relationships and respective cognitive and affective dimensions, according to the conceptual model presented in Figure 1. The cognitive and affective dimensions of each of the images were estimated by refining the scales and extracting certain factors.

The refinement of the scales was based on an analysis of Cronbach's alpha (α), aiming to eliminate those items that did not contribute to the reliability level of the scale. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the convergent and discriminant validities. Next, single factors for each construct were extracted by using exploratory factor analysis with the maximum likelihood estimator. The scores for each factor constituted the exogenous explanatory variables of the general images of Brazil and Rio de Janeiro in the simultaneous equations model.

Besides the affective and cognitive dimensions, each image was also considered as a function of the other image. In this way, the image of Rio de Janeiro was modeled as a function of the image of Brazil, which represents the brand effect. On the other hand, the image of Brazil was modeled as a function of the image of Rio de Janeiro, representing the reciprocal effect. The model of simultaneous equations is presented below:

I_{R} = β_{R 0} + β_{R 1} I_{B} + β_{R 2} A_{R} + β_{R 3} C_{R 1} + β_{R 4} C_{R 2} + u_{R}

I_{B} = β_{B 0} + β_{B 1} I_{R} + β_{B 2} A_{B} + β_{B 3} C_{B 1} + β_{B 4} C_{B 2} + u_{B}

In the equation, I is the image, A is the affective dimension, and C is the cognitive dimension. The subscript R indicates Rio de Janeiro, while B indicates Brazil. β are parameters to be estimated, and u is the stochastic error term. A and C can be seen as instrumental variables, allowing an unbiased estimation of the model parameters, including those that represent the bidirectional effects between the two images. The ratio of A_R to I_B, for example, occurs only in an I_R-mediated manner. The model was estimated by the three-stage least squares method, an efficient alternative that requires a reduced number of hypotheses in respect of the data.

It is relevant to stress that the estimation of bidirectional effects with cross-sectional data requires a simultaneous equation approach. The implementation of this type of model together with latent variables estimation is not available. Thus, the model was estimated in two independent parts. The first part is the estimation of factors for measuring constructs by using exploratory factor analysis. The second part is the simultaneous equation model, where previously estimated factors are taken as exogenous variables.

Results and discussion

Sample profile

Data collection was carried out after the event took place and with people who did not watch the Games (99% did not go to the games) and mostly did not visit the country (89%). So, participant assessment was based on secondary sources of information about the destinations, such as advertisements, television, the internet, and friends living in the country where the event took place (see Table 1). According to Echtner and Ritchie (1991), Gunn (1972), and Phelps (1986), individuals can have an image of a destination, even without having ever visited it or have any other form of exposure to it. Whether a destination has been visited or not also differentiates the type of image that a tourist forms; the primary image is the one formed only by visitation and the secondary image by other forms of contact with a tourist destination (Phelps, 1986). The secondary image was analyzed in this study. Due to the Olympic Games context, it is believed that the information available was more extensive, due to the mega exposure to which the destination was submitted.

Table 1.

Sample description.

Gender
Male	Female						Total
43.9%	56.1%						100%
Age groups (in years)
17–25	26–35	36–45	46–55	56–74			Total
55.8%	26.4	7.6%	6.1%	4.2%			100%
Education
Attending college	Undergraduate degree	Postgraduate degree					Total
39%	28%	33%					100%
Annual Average Income (dollar)
Less than 20.000	20.000–39.999	40.000–59.999	60.000–79.999	80.000- 99.999	Over than 100.000		Total
27.7%	19.9%	15.5%	7.3%	9.1%	21.3%		100%
Ethnicity
White	Asian	Hispanic/Latino	Black/African descendant	Total
48.5%	22%	16.7%	9.5%	100%
Continents of origin
North America	Asian	Europe	South America	Central America and the Caribbean	Africa	Oceania	Total
16.7%	16.7%	11.9%	5.7%	3.3%	2.4%	0.6%	100%
Sources of information about Brazil (all that apply)
Newspaper/Magazine	TV Commercial	TV/Movies	Social media	Friend family	Already visit	Official tourism website
47.6%	23.5%	68.1	66.8%	58.8%	10.6%	8.5%

The individuals forming the sample came from 48 countries, with the highest rate of participation being the United States (58.9%), followed by China (6.5%), India and France (2.4% each), and Colombia (2.1%). The sample covered all the continental areas: North America (59.5%—almost all the respondents from North America were born in the United States); Asia (16.7%); Europe (11.9%); South America (5.7%); Central America and the Caribbean (3.3%); Africa (2.4%); and Oceania (0.6%). Respondent knowledge about Brazil came from various sources, especially newspaper/magazines, TV/movies, social media, and friends or family.

Results

Starting from the complete list of items in the questionnaire, those which led to the reduction of Cronbach's α in each scale were successively excluded. This procedure aims to increase measurement reliability. The scale of the affective dimension of the image of Rio de Janeiro was thus reduced from 8 to 3 items, while the affective scale for Brazil was reduced to 5 items. The scales for the cognitive dimension were not reduced and remained at 11 items. All the items in these scales increased the value of α, indicating that they all provided relevant information. Table 2 summarizes the results of the scaling process.

Table 2.

Final scale items.

Dimension	Item (α)	Present on the final scale
Dimension	Item (α)	Brazil	Rio de Janeiro
Affective	Α	0.884	0.892
	Reliable	X	X
	Friendly	X	X
	Pleasant	X	X
	Exciting	X
	Relaxing	X
	Stressful
	Terrifying
	Hectic
Cognitive	Α	0.881	0.907
	Valued hygiene and cleanliness	X	X
	Good infrastructure	X	X
	Safe	X	X
	Good options for nightlife and entertainment	X	X
	Adequate accommodation	X	X
	Attractive local cuisine	X	X
	Interesting historical and cultural attractions	X	X
	Beautiful scenery and natural attractions	X	X
	Good value for Money	X	X
	Environment preserved	X	X
	Good climate	X	X

A confirmatory factor analysis of these four constructs and their respective items was then estimated. All items were significantly associated with their respective constructs (p < 0.001), providing good evidence of construct convergent validity. Discriminant validity was also tested by restricting correlations between pairs of constructs to 1. In all tests, the performance of the model decreased (p < 0.001), which indicates that the constructs display discriminant validity.

The items of each construct were combined into single factors by exploratory factor analysis. The affective image factor constructs were more reliable than the cognitive ones. The eigenvalue of the extracted factor regarding the affective image dimension of the city was 0.83, while for the country it was 0.69. The eigenvalue of the cognitive image dimension of the city was 0.53, while for the country it was 0.47.

The results of the simultaneous equations model reveal that both equations are significant according to the analysis of variance (p < 0.001). The Brazil image equation achieved an R² value of 0.60, while the Rio de Janeiro image equation resulted in an R² value of 0.41. Moreover, the residuals of both equations were normally distributed according to the Shapiro–Wilk and the Shapiro–Francia normality tests (p < 0.01). The estimated coefficients are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Results of simultaneous equations.

Dependent variable	Explanatory variable	β	Std. Error	t	p-value
Rio Image	Brazil Image	0.1770.174	0.1190.113	1.491.53	0.1350.125
	Rio Affective	0.9340.689	0.1160.121	8.025.70	0.0000.000
	Rio Cognitive Rio	−0.0650.162	0.1060.122	−0.611.33	0.5390.184
	constant	3.7843.806	0.6290.602	6.016.33	0.0000.000
Brazil Image	Rio Image	0.2050.183	0.0680.071	3.002.57	0.0030.010
	Brazil Affective	0.6960.706	0.0840.083	8.328.53	0.0000.000
	Cognitive Brazil	0.2270.021	0.0760.053	3.000.40	0.0030.691
	Constant	4.2914.397	0.3240.338	13.2313.00	0.0000.000

Discussion

The results indicate that the effect of Brazil's image as a tourism destination on the destination image of Rio de Janeiro as the host city of the Olympic Games was not significant (p = 0.135). This result corroborates H1 that, in the context of the Olympic Games, the destination image of a country does not influence the destination image of a host city. Therefore, the image of Rio de Janeiro in this scenario remained independent of Brazil's image, highlighting the importance and potential of the Olympic Games context. This result reinforces findings from other studies regarding the importance of the Olympic Games in shaping and consolidating the image of a host city, such as Hahm et al. (2019).

However, this result contrasts with some studies that deal with the influence of national destinations, such as Herrero et al. (2015, 2017). This can, perhaps, be attributed to the context and possibly the greater visibility of a host city due to the Olympic Games contributing to a given city's independent prominence. This point is further reinforced by the fact that Brazil is sometimes perceived ambiguously or even negatively due to attributes such as crime, violence, environmental degradation, hunger, and poverty (Giraldi et al., 2011; Kotler and Gertner, 2004; Mariutti et al., 2013; Pérez-Nebra and Torres, 2010). Thus, the fact that the parent destination, in this case, does not have a consolidated positive image may have contributed to the result obtained.

On the other hand, the image of Brazil is positively affected by the image of Rio de Janeiro (p = 0.003). The more positive the destination image of an Olympic Games host city, the more positive the destination image of the host country: this confirms H2. This result also supports the concept of reciprocal effect. It aligns with the results obtained by Santos and Giraldi (2017), by highlighting that Rio de Janeiro can be considered a destination within Brazil, with the power to strengthen its national tourism brand.

Although most studies on reciprocal effects involve commodities, many show similar positive effects, such as Zimmer and Bhat (2004) and Joshi and Yadav (2017). This means that extensions could be introduced to help strengthen the value of a parent brand. It is also worth noting that in the literature regarding the image of Brazil, Rio de Janeiro appears as a highlight to the destination parent brand. Most non-visitors agree, for example, that people visit Brazil because of the Carnival in Rio (Rezend-Parker et al., 2003). Likewise, the most popular attractions in Brazil are in Rio de Janeiro (Pérez-Nebra and Torres, 2010), contributing to the idea that aside from the Olympic Games, the city is renowned. The result reinforces what is advocated by Herstein (2012), but in an Olympic Games context: that a powerful country brand strategy is the result of the powerful city and regional brands. For those authors mentioned above, Brazil is an example of a country that has implemented this type of branding strategy successfully.

The affective dimension was positive and significant (p < 0.001) for both images, with emphasis on the beneficial variables: reliable, friendly, pleasant, exciting, and relaxing. Thus, H3 and H4 were supported by the evidence. The cognitive image was significant for the image of the country (p = 0.003), but not for Rio de Janeiro (p = 0.539). Hence, H5 was supported by the evidence, while H6 was not supported.

The affective result is in line with other image studies on Brazil, which highlight positive affective aspects such as “fun” and “vibrant” (Mariutti et al., 2013). Negative views tend to be more related to cognitive aspects such as lack of security, accommodation problems, or lack of quality, as can be seen in the work of Rezend-Parker et al. (2003).

Academic and managerial implications

This study focuses on the reciprocal effect concerning tourist destination image, which is an important element of a destination brand. The objective was to verify both the brand effect of Brazil's destination image on the city of Rio de Janeiro as the host city of the 2016 Olympic Games and Rio's reciprocal effect. The effect of the brand (country) on the product (city) was not proven, since the influence of the image of Brazil in Rio was not significant. On the other hand, the reciprocal effect was confirmed; that is, the image of Rio as the host city of the 2016 Olympic Games positively influenced the image of Brazil as a parent destination.

These results are important for several reasons. The first is the paucity of studies on the reciprocal effects of tourism destination brands. The proof of this study's reciprocal effect reinforces its existence and allows for a marketing strategy focused on products that will have positive effects on parent brand tourism destinations, as Santos and Giraldi (2017) have previously suggested. Furthermore, the effect was measured in a novel way in the context of a sporting mega-event allowing for bidirectional effects. Nevertheless, the results indicated a unidirectional effect, indicating that tourism brand marketing actions can be enhanced by this kind of event, as previously shown by Kim et al. (2014), Knott et al. (2015), and Lai (2018). This was corroborated by the fact that the parent brand was found not to affect the host city, reinforcing the importance of the mega-event, which probably gifted the host city greater visibility than the parent destination. On the other hand, it also signals the importance of some specific destinations within a national destination context, as seems to be the case with Rio de Janeiro. Since Brazil is a country with an ambiguous image (Mariutti et al., 2013; Rezend-Parker et al., 2003), it may have benefitted from the increased awareness and knowledge.

The literature on this topic is still in its infancy, and the context of a sporting mega-event is clearly understudied in this area. However, in theoretical terms, there has been an increase in studies of the reciprocal effect regarding both results and methodology. For example, in line with the majority of research on this topic, Santos and Giraldi (2017) use the experimental method. However, in their study, a descriptive quantitative method was used. Most studies in this field analyze extensions of brands of non-tourism products, at variance with the present study. The results of this paper can, therefore, offer more evidence of the existence of reciprocal effects for tourism destinations. Finally, the conceptual model presented contributes to the development of predictions about the likely effects of different events and destination brand management strategies.

In practical terms, the realization of major sporting events brings visibility and can influence the generation of reciprocal image effects between destinations. For example, the visibility that Rio has gained from the games possibly contributes to the positive reciprocal effect in Brazil (Ferreira and Giraldi, 2020; Ferreira et al., 2018; Hahm et al., 2019; Lai, 2018; Tasci et al., 2019). Thus, even developing countries, such as Brazil, can take advantage of these effects, considering that the higher level of awareness of a host city will help to improve the level of knowledge with respect to its host country. However, this should involve a cost–benefit analysis to ascertain whether the investment is wise, especially considering the concern that negative media about the planning and structure of the games could harm a country's reputation, as Terry et al. (2019) have suggested.

One important implication of this study is that knowing the existence of the reciprocal effect allows better decisions about which destinations are worth investing in, because they will better contribute to the image of the country, as Moon et al. (2011) and Kim et al. (2019) have posited in their papers. Such an analysis should also include the decision of whether to be the host of others sports mega-events in the future.

Combining tourism marketing strategies with such an event can create positive effects both for a host city and its parent destination. This study looks at the idea of allying these three factors: host city, national destination, and a sporting mega-event. By optimizing investments in strategic destinations, such as Rio de Janeiro, a destination's image can be positively affected by emphasizing the most important dimensions, such as the affective dimension, which has been shown to be an important one in Brazil's image (Mariutti et al., 2013). Studies like this one can identify important destinations within a country that could be better managed and generate a positive influence on the image of the whole country as a tourist destination, including financial investment.

We noticed that Rio de Janeiro fulfilled this role, showing itself to be a host city that is worth investing in financially. Marketing strategies based on specific destinations within the country can be more effective than a general country strategy. Furthermore, in post-Covid times, considering the negative impacts of this pandemic on tourism, the more assertive the target strategies are the better.

The affective dimension must also be highlighted and includes positive aspects such as trustworthiness, friendliness, pleasantness, exhilaration, and relaxation as significant factors. Once again, this emphasizes the positive affective aspects of both Brazil and Rio. Exploring and focusing on affective issues may present an opportunity for destinations with an underdeveloped cognitive dimension, as is the case with many emerging countries, such as Brazil. This is further corroborated by this study, wherein the cognitive factor was not significant for the image of Rio.

The main limitation of this study is related to the fact that it focused only on a specific city and a specific event. Another limitation is that the respondents did not attend the Olympics. Therefore, the results are focused on secondary images obtained through media broadcasting. Future studies could assess this same relationship in other less influential cities of the country, as well as outside the context of the Olympics or in a context of smaller sports mega-events. Other destinations within the country should be investigated because they may influence the tourism demand for all other national destinations through the reciprocal effect upon the national tourism brand. Finally, we consider that it is important for future studies to compare the difference between the reciprocal effects of respondents that went to the event and those that did not.

Supplemental Material

sj-doc-2-jvm-10.1177_13567667211063206 - Supplemental material for Rio 2016 Olympic Games: Brand and the reciprocal effects of touristic destinations

Supplemental material, sj-doc-2-jvm-10.1177_13567667211063206 for Rio 2016 Olympic Games: Brand and the reciprocal effects of touristic destinations by Luciana Brandão Ferreira, Janaina de Moura Engracia Giraldi, Glauber Eduardo de Oliveira Santos and Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour in Journal of Vacation Marketing

Supplemental Material

sj-doc-3-jvm-10.1177_13567667211063206 - Supplemental material for Rio 2016 Olympic Games: Brand and the reciprocal effects of touristic destinations

Supplemental material, sj-doc-3-jvm-10.1177_13567667211063206 for Rio 2016 Olympic Games: Brand and the reciprocal effects of touristic destinations by Luciana Brandão Ferreira, Janaina de Moura Engracia Giraldi, Glauber Eduardo de Oliveira Santos and Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour in Journal of Vacation Marketing

Supplemental Material

sj-doc-4-jvm-10.1177_13567667211063206 - Supplemental material for Rio 2016 Olympic Games: Brand and the reciprocal effects of touristic destinations

Supplemental material, sj-doc-4-jvm-10.1177_13567667211063206 for Rio 2016 Olympic Games: Brand and the reciprocal effects of touristic destinations by Luciana Brandão Ferreira, Janaina de Moura Engracia Giraldi, Glauber Eduardo de Oliveira Santos and Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour in Journal of Vacation Marketing

Supplemental Material

sj-doc-5-jvm-10.1177_13567667211063206 - Supplemental material for Rio 2016 Olympic Games: Brand and the reciprocal effects of touristic destinations

Supplemental material, sj-doc-5-jvm-10.1177_13567667211063206 for Rio 2016 Olympic Games: Brand and the reciprocal effects of touristic destinations by Luciana Brandão Ferreira, Janaina de Moura Engracia Giraldi, Glauber Eduardo de Oliveira Santos and Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour in Journal of Vacation Marketing

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico do Maranhão (grant number BD 05267/15) and Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvemen (grant number 001).

ORCID iDs

Luciana Brandão Ferreira

Glauber Eduardo de Oliveira Santos

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Appendix 1. Three-stage least-squares regression

Equation	Obs	Parms	RMSE	R ²	χ²	P
Q9_1	316	4	0.8217114	0.6157	473.58	.0000
Q9_2	316	4	1.209688	0.4434	231.63	.0000
	Coef.	Std. Err.	z	P > \|z\|	[95% Conf. Interval]
Q9_1
Q9_2	0.1825065	0.0711408	2.57	0.010	0.043073	.3219399
AFBR	0.7061182	0.0827772	8.53	0.000	0.543878	.8683585
COBR1	0.2028185	0.0786981	2.58	0.010	0.048573	.3570639
COBR2	0.0210215	0.0528707	0.40	0.691	−0.0826032	.1246462
_cons	4.396926	0.3381235	13.00	0.000	3.734216	5.059636
Q9_2
Q9_1	0.1741245	0.1134403	1.53	0.125	−0.0482143	0.3964633
AFRIO	0.6888521	0.1209353	5.70	0.000	0.4518233	0.925881
CORIO1	0.1620207	0.1220199	1.33	0.184	−0.0771339	0.4011754
CORIO2	0.2538096	0.0740646	3.43	0.001	0.1086456	0.3989736
_cons	3.805538	0.601634	6.33	0.000	2.626357	4.984718
Endogenous variables: Q9_1 Q9_2
Exogenous variables: AFBR COBR1 COBR2 AFRIO CORIO1 CORIO2

References

Aaker

Keller

(1990) Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing 54(1): 27–41.

Anholt

(2010) Definitions of place branding—working towards a resolution. Place Branding & Public Diplomacy 6(1): 1–10..

Arnegger

Herz

(2016) Economic and destination image impacts of mega-events in emerging tourist destinations. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 5(2): 76–85.

Balachander

Ghose

(2003) Reciprocal spillover effects: A strategic benefit of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing 67(1): 4–13.

Baloglu

McCleary

(1999) A model of tourism image formation. Annals of Tourism Research 26(1): 868–897.

Campelo

Aitken

Thyne

, et al. (2014) Sense of place: The importance for destination branding. Journal of Travel Research 53(2): 154–166.

Campo

Alvarez

(2010) Country versus destination image a developing country. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 27(7): 749–765.

Chang

Stylos

Yeh

, et al. (2015) How do motivation, pre-visit information search and destination image affect post-visit behavioral intention? The case of an island destination. European Journal of Tourism Research 9(1): 8–23.

Chen

ACH

Chen

(2000) Brand dilution effect of extension failure—a Taiwan study. Journal of Product and Brand Management 9(4): 243–254.

10.

Childs

(2017) Brand extension feedback effects: What do we know and where should we go? Journal of Product & Brand Management 26(7): 671–689.

11.

Clifton

(2014) Towards a holistic understanding of country of origin effects? Branding of the region, branding from the region. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 3(2): 122–132.

12.

CuBillo

Sánchez

Cerviño

(2006) International students’ decision- making process. International Journal of Educational Management 20(2): 101–115.

13.

Davies

(2009) Managing the alchemy of the 2010 Football World Cup. In: Pillay

Tomlinson

Bass

(eds) Development and Dreams: The Urban Legacy of the 2010 Football World Cup. Cape Town: HSRC Press, 33-52.

14.

Deng

(2013) A model of event–destination image transfer. Journal of Travel Research 53(1): 69–82.

15.

Dinnie

(2008) Nation Branding: Concepts, Issues, Practice. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

16.

Echtner

Ritchie

JRB

(1991) The meaning and measurement of destination image. Journal of Travel Studies 2(2): 2–12.

17.

Ferrari

Guala

(2017) Mega-events and their legacy: Image and tourism in Genova, Turin and Milan. Leisure Studies 36(1): 119–137.

18.

Ferreira

Giraldi

JDME

(2020) Rio de Janeiro’s image as the 2016 Olympic Games host city: analysis of the main image formation factors. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights 3(2): 115–135.

19.

Ferreira

Lourenção

MdA

Giraldi

, et al. (2018) Economic and image impacts of summer olympic games in tourist destinations: A literature review. Tourism & Management Studies 14(3): 52–63.

20.

Fetscherin

(2010) The determinants and measurement of a country brand: The country brand strength index. International Marketing Review 27(4): 466–479.

21.

Florek

Breitbarth

Conejo

(2008) Mega event = mega impact? Travelling fans’ experience and perceptions of the 2006 FIFA World Cup host nation. Journal of Sport & Tourism 13(3): 199–219.

22.

Gartner

Ruzzier

(2011) Tourism destination brand equity dimensions: Renewal versus repeat market. Journal of Travel Research 50(5): 471–481.

23.

Gibson

Zhang

(2008) Destination image and intent to visit China and the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Journal of Sport Management 22: 427–450.

24.

Giraldi

JME

Giraldi

IME

Scaduto

(2011) Brazil’s image as a social representation process. African Journal of Business Management 5(22): 8821–8831.

25.

Gunn

(1972) Vacationscape: Designing Tourist Regions. Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis/University of Texas.

26.

Hahm

Tasci

Terry

(2018) Investigating the interplay among the Olympic games image, destination image, and country image for four previous hosts. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 35(6): 755–771.

27.

Hahm

Tasci

Terry

(2019) The Olympic Games’ impact on South Korea’s image. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 14, 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2019.100373.

28.

Han

(1990) Testing the role of country image in consumer choice behaviour. European Journal of Marketing 24(6): 24–40.

29.

Herrero

San Martín

García De Los Salmones

, et al. (2015) Influence of country and city images on students’ perception of host universities and their satisfaction with the assigned destination for their exchange programmes. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 11(3): 190–203.

30.

Herrero

San Martín

Garcia De Los Salmones

, et al. (2017) Examining the hierarchy of destination brands and the chain of effects between brand equity dimensions. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 6(4): 353–362.

31.

Herstein

(2012) Thin line between country, city, and region branding. Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(2): 147–155.

32.

Heslop

Nadeau

O'reilly

, et al (2013) Mega-event and country co-branding: Image shifts, transfers and reputational impacts. Corporate Reputation Review 16(1): 7–33.

33.

John

Loken

Joiner

(1998) The negative impact of brand extensions: Can flagship products be diluted? Journal of Marketing 62(1): 19–32.

34.

Joshi

Yadav

(2017) Evaluating the feedback effects of brand extension on parent brand equity: A study on Indian FMCG industry. Vision 21(3): 305–313.

35.

Kaplanidou

(2006) Affective event and destination image: Their influence on Olympic travelers’ behavioral intentions. Event Management 10(2–3): 159–173.

36.

Kenyon

Bodet

(2018) Exploring the domestic relationship between mega-events and destination image: The image impact of hosting the 2012 Olympic Games for the city of London. Sport Management Review 21(3): 232–249.

37.

Kim

Kang

Kim

Y-K

(2014) Impact of mega sport events on destination image and country image. Sport Marketing Quarterly 23(3): 161–175.

38.

Kim

Cho

, et al. (2019) The impact of mega sporting events on host country’s destination images: The cases of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics and 2015 Beijing IAAF World Championships. Sport Marketing Quarterly 28(3), 148-162.

39.

Knapp

A-K

Hennig-Thurau

Mathys

(2014) The importance of reciprocal spillover effects for the valuation of bestseller brands: Introducing and testing a contingency model. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 42(2): 205–221.

40.

Knott

Fyall

Jones

(2015) The nation branding opportunities provided by a sport mega-event: South Africa and the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 4(1): 46–56.

41.

Kotler

Gertner

(2004) O estratégico marketing de lugares [The strategy of marketing places]. Dossiê HSM Management 44: 62–93.

42.

Ladhari

Souiden

(2020) The role of mega-sports event experience and host city experience in explaining enjoyment, city image, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 37(4): 460–478.

43.

Lai

(2018) Influence of event image on destination image: The case of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 7: 153–163.

44.

Lane

Jacobson

(1997) The reciprocal impact of brand leveraging: Feedback effects from brand extension evaluation to brand evaluation. Marketing Letters 8(3): 261–271.

45.

Lee

Taylor

Lee

, et al. (2005) The impact of a sport mega-event on destination image: The case of the 2002 FIFA World Cup Korea/Japan. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 6(3): 27–45.

46.

Lee

B-K

Lee

W-N

(2013) Country-of-origin fit’s effect on consumer product evaluation in cross-border strategic brand alliance. Journal of Business Research 66(3): 354–363.

47.

Lee

Lockshin

(2012) Reverse country-of-origin effects of product perceptions on destination image. Journal of Travel Research 51(4): 502–511.

48.

Magnusson

Krishnan

Westjohn

, et al. (2014) The spillover effects of prototype brand transgressions on country image and related brands. Journal of International Marketing 22(1): 21–38.

49.

Mariutti

Giraldi

JDME

Crescitelli

(2013) The image of Brazil as a tourism destination: An exploratory study of the American market. International Journal of Business Administration 4(1): 13–22.

50.

Martinez

Chernatony

(2004) The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image. Journal of Consumer Marketing 21(1): 39–50.

51.

Moon

Kim

, et al. (2011) The influence of consumer’s event quality perception on destination image. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 21(3): 287–303.

52.

Morgan

Pritchard

(2014) Destination reputations and brands: Communication challenges. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 3(1): 1–?.

53.

Mossberg

Kleppe

(2005) Country and destination image–different or similar image concepts? The Service Industries Journal 25(4): 493–503.

54.

Muller

(2017) Approaching paradox: Loving and hating mega-events. Tourism Management 63: 234–241.

55.

Nadeau

Heslop

O’reilly

, et al. (2008) Destination in a country image context. Annals of Tourism Research 35(1): 84–106.

56.

Newland

Yoo

JJE

(2020) Active sport event participants’ behavioural intentions: Leveraging outcomes for future attendance and visitation. Journal of Vacation Marketing 27(1): 32–44.

57.

Nghiêm-Phú

(2014) A review of destination image studies from 2008 to 2012. European Journal of Tourism Research 8(1): 35–65.

58.

Papadopoulos

Heslop

(2002) Country equity and country branding: Problems and prospects. Journal of Brand Management 9(4–5): 294–314.

59.

Park

Milberg

Lawson

(1991) Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research 18(2): 185–193.

60.

Pérez-Nebra

Torres

(2010) Medindo a imagem do destino turístico: Uma pesquisa baseada na teoria de resposta ao item. [measuring the image of the tourist destination: A research based on the theory of response to the item]. RAC Curitiba 14(1): 80–99.

61.

Phelps

(1986) Holiday destination image: The problem of assessment. Tourism Management 7(3): 168–180.

62.

Pillay

Tomlinson

Bass

(2009) Introduction. Development and Dreams: The Urban Legacy of the 2010 Football World Cup. Cape Town: HSRC Press.

63.

Rezend-Parker

Morrison

Ismail

(2003) Dazed and confused? An exploratory study of Brazil as a travel destination. Journal of Vacation Marketing 9: 243–259.

64.

Russell

Pratt

(1980) A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38(2): 311–322.

65.

Santos

GEDO

Giraldi

JDME

(2017) Reciprocal effect of tourist destinations on the strength of national tourism brands. Tourism Management 61: 443–450.

66.

Singh

Zhou

(2016) Transformation of tourism in Beijing after the 2008 Summer Olympics: An analysis of the impacts in 2014. International Journal of Tourism Research 18(4): 277–285.

67.

Stepchenkova

(2015) Country-of-origin Effects on Destination Product: Implications for Brand USA. Tourism Travel and Research Association: Advancing Tourism Research Globally. Portland: Tourism Travel and Research Association.

68.

Tasci

ADA

Hahm

Breiter

(2019) A longitudinal study of Olympic Games’ impact on the image of a host country. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 36(4): 443–457.

69.

Ulvnes

Solberg

(2016) Can major sport events attract tourists? A study of media information and explicit memory. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 16(2): 143–157.

70.

Crompton

(1990) Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research 17(3): 432–448.

71.

Walker

Kaplanidou

Gibson

, et al. (2013) “Win in Africa, with Africa”: Social responsibility, event image, and destination benefits. the case of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Tourism Management 34: 80–90.

72.

Zhang

Morrison

, et al. (2016) How country image effects tourists’ destination evaluations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 42(6): 904–930.

73.

Zimmer

Bhat

(2004) The reciprocal effects on extension quality and fit on parent brand attitude. Journal of Product and Brand Management 13(1): 37–46.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.29 MB

0.04 MB

0.08 MB

0.17 MB

0.03 MB