Description
This introduction seeks to provide a broad review of scholarly developments in the nascent
field of destination branding spanning almost 12 years in order to locate the relevance and import of the
following nine papers compiled for this special issue on destination branding and marketing.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Affirmation, assimilation, and anarchy: critical undercurrents in destination branding
Leonardo A.N. Dioko Rich Harrill
Article information:
To cite this document:
Leonardo A.N. Dioko Rich Harrill, (2011),"Affirmation, assimilation, and anarchy: critical undercurrents in destination branding", International
J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 215 - 226
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111156916
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:16 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 60 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1818 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Ana María Munar, (2011),"Tourist-created content: rethinking destination branding", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 291-305http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111156989
Saila Saraniemi, (2011),"From destination image building to identity-based branding", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 247-254http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111156943
Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan, Ramzi Nekhili, Clifford Lewis, (2011),"Destination brand components", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 4-25http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111111726
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Guest editorial
Af?rmation, assimilation, and anarchy:
critical undercurrents in destination branding
Leonardo A.N. Dioko and Rich Harrill
Abstract
Purpose – This introduction seeks to provide a broad review of scholarly developments in the nascent
?eld of destination branding spanning almost 12 years in order to locate the relevance and import of the
following nine papers compiled for this special issue on destination branding and marketing.
Design/methodology/approach – A general review of literature is undertaken guided by an
epistemological approach to knowledge thus far generated by the destination branding ?eld, consistent
with the recommendation of Tribe, and in lieu of the common reductionist approach to identifying
themes. The background generated by the review is then used to introduce and assess the signi?cance
of the articles contained in this special issue.
Findings – Three undercurrents of critical issues implicated with the massive body of knowledge
generated by the ?rst decade of destination branding research are described and posited relations
between them are tentatively advanced. The undercurrents pertain primarily to matters of identity
af?rmation, inter-organizational assimilation and an unfolding anarchic environment for destination
branding research and practice. The papers in this special issue exhibit profound connections with the
different undercurrents.
Originality/value – Rather than summarize and classify achievements in destination branding research
over the last decade or so, this editorial argues that current and future research contends with larger
issues surrounding the ?eld’s core concern of destination branding and marketing.
Keywords Destination branding, Knowledge management, Marketing, Epistemology
Paper type General review
A
little more than a decade has transpired since the ?rst scholarly references to
destination branding were published (Gnoth, 1998; Pike, 2009; Ritchie and Ritchie,
1998). Early on, the fundamental research question posed was: Can nations, states,
places and destinations be branded and marketed in the same framework as consumer
products? A decade’s worth of research achievements by scholars in the tourism and
consumer marketing ?elds now convinces many from both academia and industry to
respond to that question in the positive. Within the ?rst decade of the millennium, several
destination branding campaigns were launched at the national level by various countries,
millions of dollars poured into research and subsequent implementation of promotional
activities on a global scale.
Unprecedented case studies tell of coordination and integration efforts across a variety of
organizations and between unlikely partners on scales and magnitudes never before
attempted. Indeed, the branding and marketing of destinations is most likely the ?eld in
which the largest spanning and most resource demanding practice of brand marketing is
being attempted, comparable only perhaps to brand marketing efforts in organizing the
quadrennial Olympic Games or the World Cup. So large is the scope and the impact so
profound on the psyche of consumers attuned to an globally-connected and multimedia
savvy generation that this ?rst decade of destination branding has introduced new
DOI 10.1108/17506181111156916 VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011, pp. 215-226, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 215
Leonardo (Don) A.N. Dioko
is a Professor at the Institute
for Tourism Studies, Macau,
China. Rich Harrill is a
Director at the Alfred P.
Sloan Foundation Travel &
Tourism Industry Center
and the International
Tourism Research Institute,
University of South
Carolina, Columbia, South
Carolina, USA.
Received: May 2010
Revised: July 2010
Accepted: October 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
meanings, psychological dimensions, and conditioned responses to otherwise everyday
terms such as pure, amazing, 100 per cent, incredible, uniquely, world city and even objects
(ferns) and phrases such as ‘‘bloody hell.’’
Such enthusiasm and perceived success for a nascent ?eld is to be expected at the outset.
Destination branding’s impact has indeed been widespread and advocates argue it has
stimulated tourism; destination marketing organizations (DMOs) and national tourism
organizations (NTOs) now invariably and annually commit to substantial funding and
implement multi-year branding strategies. But the ?eld’s growing research record is not
completely unblemished and the overall impact of destination branding efforts also speaks
of occasional dismal results. Questions regarding the effectiveness of substantial funds
allocated to destination branding campaigns have emerged.
This introduction to the special issue of destination branding and marketing restates the
fundamental question ‘‘Can nations, states, places and destinations be branded and
marketed in the same framework as consumer products?’’ Only this time, it is once more
posed before a generation of scholars that have collectively committed almost a decade of
their research careers to the ?eld. It is also posed before new cohorts of scholars inspired by
the ?eld’s unanswered questions and conceptual challenges yet to be tackled. This
introduction will brie?y suggest to what extent the question has been answered as well as
posit why it remains, in large part, unanswered and relevant. For this to be realized, this
general review will brie?y outline and highlight key research developments over the course
of destination branding’s ?rst decade. It will then relate the articles compiled in this special
issue to identi?able undercurrents emerging from the substantial corpus of research in
destination branding from 1998 to late 2009. But ?rst, a historical overview is proffered.
A nascent ?eld
As a focus for research, destination branding is in its embryonic stage. In a broad review of
the ?eld Pike (2009) notes that the ?rst reference speci?c to branding destinations appeared
only in 1998 (Gnoth, 1998), citing an article reviewing papers presented by a special interest
group focusing on destination branding at the American Marketing Science conference.
Pike then characterizes the ten years between 1998 and 2007 as the decade of infancy for
destination branding studies, identifying 74 published articles on the incipient topic broadly
classi?ed as case studies (33 papers), papers dealing with brand management issues (28)
or papers of conceptual development (10), with three papers exploring web content issues.
The ?rst signi?cant tome of the ?eld was Morgan et al.’ s (2001) Destination Branding –
Creating the Unique Destination Proposition, soon followed by its 2nd edition (Morgan et al.,
2004). Both volumes served to consolidate and outline the streams of research emerging in
destination branding. Combining Pike’s (2009) overview of published journal articles and the
two edited collections of Morgan et al. (2001, 2004) reveals a rapidly evolving and growing
diversity of research activity from various scholars in the destination and tourism marketing
genre. Pike (2009) outlined that current academic streams of research focused on:
B destination brand identity;
B brand positioning; and
B destination brand equity measurement as well as tracking.
Morgan et al.’s (2001, 2004) edited volumes add practical and managerial bearing to the
?eld by advancing several themes and the inclusion of chapters written by and for
destination branding practitioners and consultants. The ?rst Destination Branding and
Marketing (DBM) Conference held in Macao at the end of 2005 (TourismManagement, 2007)
served as another vehicle to merge and outline incipient research currents. The follow up
conference in 2007 and the most recent series held in December 2009, from which the
collection of articles in this special issue of IJCTHR is drawn, re?ect both a continuation of
the themes recognized by Pike (2009), Morgan et al. (2001, 2004) and others, as well as a
movement into new ideas and heretofore untested propositions.
PAGE 216
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Altogether, themes emerging from the ?rst decade of destination branding research,
Morgan et al.’s (2001, 2004) two edited volumes and the DBM conference series broadly
straddle an expansive spectrum of destination branding issues including, but not limited to,
issues of governance, inter agency and inter regional cooperation, stakeholder involvement;
destination brand management and positioning of identity, symbolism and logo creation;
brand communication and forays into general notions of place or nation branding and
identity as well as the impact of new media and the web.
While many studies comprising the research corpus of destination branding are empirical in
nature, a considerable number of research pertain to case studies, which deserves some
elaboration (Hudson and Ritchie, 2009; Marzano and Scott, 2009; Konecnik and Go, 2008;
Henderson, 2007; Niininen et al., 2007; Morgan and Pritchard, 2005; Morgan et al., 2003).
Though weak in generality, case studies provide unparalleled background information and
historical perspective on which scholars erect strong foundations for theory building
(Eisenhardt, 1989). More importantly, case studies indicate the complexity of issues involved
in the study of emergent areas (Pike, 2005; Morgan et al., 2003; Pritchard and Morgan,
2001). The preponderance of case studies in the destination-branding genre indicates a
cautious approach by scholars to avoid blindly importing established frameworks. The
prevalence of case study methods is indicative of earnest efforts aimed toward de?ning and
identifying original as well as unique models more suited to understanding the intricacy of
conceptual connections in and native to destination branding phenomenon. Put simply, case
studies not only signal a ?eld’s novelty; their abundance indicate an intense search for
well-grounded frameworks free from relying merely on a hypothesis-testing tradition of
research (Deshpande, 1983).
Another point readers should consider as they go through the articles in this special issue is
that the evolving literature on destination branding proceeds in parallel with developments in
the general marketing and branding literature, from which the majority of paradigms and
frameworks used to understand destination branding emanate. Thus, one often sees articles
that import theoretical and conceptual frameworks from the wider marketing genre into the
context of destination or nation-place. Because destination-branding studies draw
principally on the general marketing and branding literature, scholars are simultaneously
challenged on two fronts. The ?rst is to provide suf?cient validation of branding and
marketing concepts within a destination-marketing context.
A second challenge involves modifying established principles or advancing new ones that
would be native to the ?eld, hopefully and eventually contributing back into the wider
marketing genre. This, of course, is easier said than accomplished. Scholars with interest in
destination branding and marketing therefore face a dichotomous risk in pursuing, on one
hand, a research agenda towards con?rming or clarifying destination-marketing problems
employing already established frameworks, in which the challenge lies in demonstrating
contextual validity, problems of generalizability and overcoming the lack of originality, or, on
the other, a research agenda that breaks new ground, the primary drawback for which is
committing research time and effort that may prove barren, however novel and innovative
the approach.
Conceptual re?nement and theoretical adaptation
Has the ?eld of destination branding research yielded enough knowledge to answer its
fundamental question? Can destinations be branded? A quali?ed look at the research record
would tend support the thesis. In so far as the functional techniques and managerial issues
of brand identity development (incorporating, among others, logo design), image analysis,
segmentation and positioning as well as promotion and communication are concerned,
research in destination branding has yielded signi?cant advances. That is, suf?cient
evidence exist supporting the idea destinations can be branded but only in so far as one
considers nations, places and states as objects for tourist consumption, akin to tangible as
well as intangible goods or services, though certainly they are more complex construction.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 217
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The strides that have been made in re?ning marketing concepts and the adaption of
established frameworks in the context of tourism and destination marketing practice help
make this possible. Achievements in this type of research are exempli?ed, though not limited
to, by the ?ne tuning of constructs such as brand equity, brand image, loyalty and brand
personality for application in tourism brand settings (Ekinci et al., 2007; Murphy,
Benckendorff and Moscardo, 2007a, b; Murphy, Moscardo and Benckendorff, 2007; Pike,
2007; Ekinci and Hosany, 2006; Hosany et al., 2006) or by adaptations of product branding
frameworks for destinations (Boo et al., 2009; Caldwell and Freire, 2004; Cai, 2002).
The applicability of branding principles in the context of destinations is not the only
fundamental research question in the genre of destination branding and marketing
scholarship. Clearly, a considerable number of studies have posed functional,
philosophical, as well as strategic research problems on the nature and practice of
destination branding management.
Undercurrents and unanswered problems
Pike’s (2009) summarization of 74 relevant destination branding articles spanning the last
ten years into three thematic research streams provide a neat interpretation and organization
of the state of destination branding research. His encapsulation, however, is functional in
orientation, perceiving and summing up the corpus destination branding research as a
linear stream of management issues classi?able into operational stages, from brand identity
development, brand positioning and brand equity measurement and monitoring (tracking).
He therefore depicts destination branding research consistent somewhat with a systems
approach (Von Bertalanffy, 1968). In succeeding to provide a uni?ed context to understand
the ?eld’s nascent development, he and others (Hankinson, 2007; Blain et al., 2005)
inadvertently ignores crucial subtext that simultaneously in?uence the direction and
formation of relevant research questions.
Rather than identify themes and draw an alternative thematic, this introduction seeks to
delineate palpable conceptual movements and concerns from the same corpus of
destination branding research. They are here denoted and described by the term
undercurrents – in reference to the epistemological development of new subject areas that
occur inconspicuously and obscurely yet at the same time intelligible and often recognized
by scholars seeking to understand them.
Undercurrent 1: af?rmation
An undercurrent of issues in destination branding can be denoted as af?rmation, referring in
particular to the af?rmation of identity. Destination branding requires the identi?cation and
construction of place values, uniqueness, signature elements and personality; there is no
contention on this point from the perspective of managing and developing destination
brands. Many studies are in accord and rich in descriptive accounts that in itself, the
process of de?ning these elements for branding purposes is contentious (D’Hauteserre,
2001). Unsurprisingly, prescriptions of cooperation and stakeholder involvement are often
dispensed.
What is disregarded thus far is the more central and underlying challenge surrounding the
problem of acceptance and common af?rmation and recognition by all stakeholders
involved of the different elements necessary for branding success. It refers to the
simultaneous dynamics that occur among brand image construction, de?nition, building
consensus and the scope of the brand identity. Should cities’ tow the image or tag lines
given to them by an NTO tasked with branding the nation at the country level (Hudson and
Ritchie, 2009; Caldwell and Freire, 2004)? Whose image elements should be the basis for
branding a place: Perceived images of visitors or those of the host (Konecnik and Go,
2008)? Issues of identity af?rmation ground many controversies surrounding tourism
representation in terms of what stimuli should best represent the destination brand and who
best represents the destination’s essence (Pritchard and Morgan, 2001). Research
suggests that identity development and af?rmation is dif?cult to achieve because ‘‘attempts
PAGE 218
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
to in?uence and on occasion radically re-de?ne the perceived identities of places as tourist
destinations through branding have generated questions about motives and
consequences’’ (Henderson, 2007, p. 265). Destination branding is ultimately enshrouded
in controversies involving covert commercial agendas, misappropriation of symbols and
meanings, as well as issues of commodi?cation and repackaging.
What makes this undercurrent germane to destination branding phenomenon is the rise of
new nation-states, a more globalized and connected world, and an ever-rising trend in travel
and tourism. Developments in these areas over the last decade parallel the intellectual
advent and interest for destination branding and have thrust new questions into light that
deal with identity, authenticity, place-making (in lieu of place marketing), representation, and
ownership of place or place-related attributes – often controversial topics frequently
mentioned in popular media. In a fewhigh pro?le cases, this undercurrent touch on legal and
ownership matters of identity elements and litigation on who owns what can be af?rmed.
Undercurrent 2: assimilation
Another undercurrent of issues in the destination branding literature revolves around power
and politics. This undercurrent encompasses matters of certi?cations and standards on the
one hand as well as requisites of coordination, networking and integration among different
organizations, diverse stakeholders or community groups, and among elements of the
branding hierarchy (cities, regions and countries) on the other. In one sense issues drawn in
this undercurrent refer to problems of inclusion, subordination and formal commitments of
adherence (e.g. licensing) to common values and standards that de?ne a destination’s
brand (Kerr, 2006).
Caldwell and Freire (2004), for example, call for the branding of local and regional
destinations to be subordinate to country-level destination campaigns, advocating
functional aspects for the former and more emotive, representational aspects for the latter
in terms of brand building activities. (See also Byme and Skinner (2007).) In another sense
assimilation also can refer to the internal organizational dynamics of a DMO and its various
functional departments as they deal with external parties whose cooperation and
incorporation to the branding process is crucial for its success (Hankinson, 2009). A
study focusing on the evolution of logo design process undertaken by DMOs (Blain et al.,
2005), for example, revealed that only DMO executives rather than members were primarily
involved in the process and steering the eventual outcome. In effect, control and power
rested on a few which assimilated (subordinated) the opinions of others despite efforts to
make the process all-inclusive.
Describing in rich detail New Zealand’s early efforts in developing a country brand, Morgan
et al. (2003) deduced that the eventual de?ning of a brand vision and identity was as much if
not a little less signi?cant than being able to succeed in convincing a host of internal and
external public as well as private bodies to embrace the New Zealand brand. Indeed, power
and authority are probably more crucial factors in branding (Marzano and Scott, 2009) than
collaboration and consensus (Cai, 2002).
Finally, this undercurrent of assimilation also draws issues related to organizations and
destinations submitting to quality standards, processes and subordination to certi?cation
processes in order to obtain brand trust and credibility. Gnoth (2002) noted how a high
amount of managed cohesion is necessary to bring different elements of the brand to meet
quality standards, a reason he argues why destinations can ?nd it dif?cult to achieve
successful brands. The hotel industry is no stranger to this undercurrent; the daily remit of
hotel managers is to deliver consistent brand standards (Tarrant, 1989). Increasingly, an
offshoot of the global destination branding phenomenon is the prevalence and institution of
certi?cation standards (Morrison et al., 1992), some on a global scale, which tourism
companies, operators and destinations must meet to gain brand recognition, trust and
desired positioning.
There now exist in the tourism context certi?cation standards and international criteria in
eco-labeling and ecotourism (Medina, 2005; Font and Buckley, 2001), corporate social
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 219
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
responsibility (Dodds and Joppe, 2005), sustainable tourism management and
environmental practices (Font et al., 2003; Font, 2002; Rivera, 2002; Honey and Rome,
2001) and green practices (Koeman et al., 2002), among others.
The undercurrent of assimilation in destination branding thus articulate an unrecognized
groundswell of issues in which organizational goals are subordinated either to higher entities
or governing principles or values crucial for a branding program to succeed. It is possible to
viewthe undercurrent of assimilation issues as antithetical to af?rmation, if only to distinguish
one from the other. But it is equally possible, however, to view both as distinct, yet
simultaneous processes that interact in the process of destination branding development.
Co-branding efforts, for example, are viewable as cooperation that expands brand identity
elements between two existing brand elements, image or meanings (expanding what can be
af?rmed), yet co-branding also demands from partners a certain degree of assimilation in
terms of the organization involved or in the two co-branded elements.
In another sense, both assimilation and af?rmation could be seen as counteracting forces or
approaches to destination branding success, akin to a zero-sum game. Failure in achieving
identity af?rmation may be compensated by assimilation practices. Failure in assimilation,
on the other hand, can result in only limited scope of what identity elements can be utilized in
the construction of the destination brand.
Undercurrent 3: anarchy
A third undercurrent of issues in destination branding draws issues surrounding the rapid
development of Web 2.0, social media, and interactive processes (between brand owners
and users) eventually affecting the ultimate destination brand image and identity that
emerges. This undercurrent also covers the evolving phenomenon of brand co-creation and
internet user generated content whereby new social and networking media enable and
empower a digitized social and communication environment rich with intercourse occurring
therein among netizens elaborating on their travel experiences and providing substantial
reviews of destinations.
More signi?cantly, this undercurrent portends a serious movement toward wrestling
destination brand development, management, ownership and control from the hands of
DMOs, advertisers and tourism marketers. Though anarchy sounds extreme, the term
seems commensurate with a rapidly unfolding lexis in a marketing and branding ?eld
desperately coping with the rapid change wrought by Web 2.0 and seeking to incorporate
newly introduced terms such as, among others, tribes, e-democracy, online, counter brand
or alter brand communities.
Like a new river tributary being carved, this undercurrent is so recent that few references are
available on the issue in the more established tourism journals. A few, appearing beginning
2006, that do touch on it do so only in general terms and without advancing theoretical
framework to incorporate it in destination branding theory and practice (Buhalis and Law,
2008; Gertner et al., 2006). Even as academia and industry seek to understand its
implications and signi?cance (Sood et al., 2009), the most urgent issues de?ning this
undercurrent seemto be the ‘‘loss of control’’ and the ‘‘brand impact of user controlled social
media’’ (Hamill et al., 2009).
More recent developments point to researchers and practitioners focusing their attention on
analyzing user generated content (e.g. travel blogs) and assessing the implications for
destination brands (Pu¨ hringer and Taylor, 2008; Schmallegger and Carson, 2008; Wenger,
2008). Ulrike et al. (2007) catalogue several quantitative and qualitative techniques for
analyzing social media content in tourism marketing context thereby providing scholars and
destination marketers a means of coping with torrent of user generated content now
increasingly encroaching and undermining their brand architecture.
A few interesting ideas and potentially new paradigms are emerging from this undercurrent.
Jørgensen and Munar (2009), for example, allude to a need for a ‘‘dialogical process with
tourist’’ within the destination branding framework. To cope with ‘‘unof?cial information’’ that are
PAGE 220
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
now more popularly absorbed by Web 2.0 users, Inversini et al. (2010) advocate a construct
called destination online reputation, though how such a new metric relates to established
principles of brand equity, image and brand personality remains a research imperative.
Though calls for cooperation, stakeholder participation and collaboration – a theme of old –
still resonate in this undercurrent (Sigala and Marinidis, 2010), they are clearly inadequate in
confronting a new reality in which consumers are not just enabled and empowered to
co-construct but also to de-construct destination brands. Indeed, Cova and White (2010)
sound most uneasy in their investigation of the impact of tribal marketing or brand
communities, assessing their in?uence and power as posing signi?cant risk, potentially
dangerous opposition and threats to brand managers in their ability to undermine and offer
alter or counter brand offerings.
As an undercurrent of research, issues of anarchy in destination brand marketing may
develop as an entirely independent sub-branch of the ?eld. It is cast here as an undercurrent
not because it is new but because of its immense potential to erode or fuse the research
knowledge it will yield with the undercurrents of identity af?rmation and assimilation.
Undercurrents, not themes
In the sense that they are characterized in this paper, undercurrents are not factors that can
be modeled and quanti?ed and the limitations of this introductory precludes further
theorizing. A few conjectures as to how each undercurrent relates to each other can offer
some ideas to understanding their nature. Assimilation and af?rmation, for example, can be
seen as interacting dialectical forces in?uencing the outcome of managed approaches to
destination branding. (They are dialectic because their effects cancel each other out, as
proposed earlier.) It is harder to conjecture how the undercurrent of anarchy relates to the
?rst two since the scope of issues in this undercurrent seem exogenous or independent to
the ?rst two. Indeed, anarchy issues may be antithetical to a managed approach to branding
destinations and if so will demand new paradigms and models. Because the conceptual
challenges in the anarchy undercurrent suggest that Web 2.0 and tribal communities issues
will proceed regardless of research progress in managed destination branding, both
undercurrents will run simultaneously and parallel; if so, anarchy may well subsume the ?rst
two undercurrents. Finally, an alternate scenario is that progress in research within the two
undercurrents of af?rmation and assimilation will readjust its models and assumptions or
reorder established theoretical frameworks to incorporate the omnipresent challenges of an
anarchic environment to branding.
Undercurrents are not themes in the manner they are posited in this introduction. Themes
serve to pinpoint underlying or central ideas, explicitly (or, at the surface) or implicitly in a
known body of literature. Undercurrents on the other hand is merely a term used to denote
the purpose of this introduction: To uncover the imperceptible issues, problems and
questions that shadow the ?ndings of research conducted toward known issues of
destination branding.
The preceding conceptual undercurrents are promising in so far as they can help drive,
inform and direct new research streams and generate new and novel hypotheses, in
contrast to thematic consolidation which is reductionist and descriptive. Finally, this paper’s
use of undercurrents as opposed to themes abide by Tribe’s (1997, 2004) distinction
between the ‘‘business of tourism’’ and the ‘‘non-business aspects of tourism’’ in his
discourse on the epistemology of tourism wherein, he stresses, not only an interdisciplinary
development but extra-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary progress. It is the nature of
researchers to synthesize ideas.
Can all three undercurrents be characterized, as an exercise, as political in nature? Aren’t
identity af?rmation, power, politics, assimilation and anarchy concepts located in political
science? They may very well be, but in light of the embryonic stage the ?eld of destination
branding research is in and indeed, regardless of it, it is best not to categorize the
undercurrents in one discipline, following Tribe’s caveat that tourism should not be seen as
located in one discipline but rather as extra- and multi-disciplinary.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 221
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The compilation
The three undercurrents expounded on previously can facilitate locating and assessing the
relevance of this special issue collection. Though it is human tendency to organize and
classify, the nine papers in this special issue cannot be pigeon holed into thematic
categories. The editors of the 3rd Destination Branding and Marketing Conference did not
have any a priori themes in shaping the contents of this special issue. Nevertheless, a
posteriori examination of the collection reveals a degree of consistency with the three
undercurrents of challenges highlighted earlier.
The ?rst sub-group of papers are consistent with the undercurrent of identity af?rmation in so
far as the papers develop the notion linking destination branding with ‘‘the coming of age’’ of
nations, states and communities in a more globalized world. Noel Scott, Ann Suwaree
Ashton, Peiyi Ding, and Honggang Xu tackle this under the context of co-branding (Tourism
branding and nation building in China), stressing the complexity of branding a nation (China)
and how it can use branding as a ‘‘tool of self-af?rmation.’’ Likewise, John Nadeau, Norm
O’Reilly, and Louise Heslop (China’s Olympic destination: tourist evaluations of China and
the games) took advantage of the 2008 Olympic Games to observe China’s determination to
change its world image via hosting the summer games, and how much the perceptions of a
destination as a country and separately as a tourist destination are interwoven.
Ultimately, they provide a critical evaluation of the ef?cacy of holding mega-events such as
the Olympics in altering destination brand and image. In her work of describing in great
detail the destination brand building activities and the various processes undertaken in
building a brand, Saila Saraniemi (From destination image building to identity-based
branding) asserts that at its root, destination brand building is identity building, a process
made complex by the multiple stakeholders involved in the process.
A second group of papers in this special issue provide not only practical and applied
relevance to destination branding and marketing. These papers also deal with the
undercurrent of assimilation wherein stakeholder co-creation and participative involvement
in the branding process are crucial. For example, issues of co-branding and brand
development that incorporates various stakeholders is advanced more speci?cally in terms
of the segmentation process by Aaron Tkaczynski and Sharyn Rundle-Thiele (Segmenting
destinations: in the eyes of the stakeholders), wherein they advocate a two-stage process of
segmentation.
Assimilation issues presuppose that brands embody the level of trust consumers have in
products. If so, then certi?cation and independent evaluation of a destination’s attributes are
essential, in the same way that goods and services subject themselves to independent
certi?cation for certain standards. Kirk Bowman (Sustainable tourism certi?cation and state
capacity: keep it local, simple and fuzzy) reports his investigation into the advantages and
disadvantages of such a process among destinations seeking sustainable tourism
certi?cation. In it he critiques various elements certi?cation processes, suggesting better
measures for undertaking such programs and the implications for branding destinations.
In similar light, Andrea Insch’s contribution (Conceptualization and anatomy of green
destination brands) emphasizes the development of speci?c positioning attributes for
destination brands. In her study, she deconstructs what makes a destination to be perceived
as a green destination brand, using the case of New Zealand. She builds her thesis from an
interesting departure point: The assumption that not all eco-touristic destinations are
necessarily green destination brands. Her paper thus provides a good reference for
engineering destination attribute positioning, identity and brand building and the
assimilation process of what can or can’t be included in a nation’s brand identity.
Finally, a third group of papers highlights the undercurrent of anarchy issues, in particular,
the role of newly evolving social media and its impact on building destination image and
brand equity. Ana Munar’s contribution (Tourist created content: rethinking destination
branding) breaks ground by exploring how tourist-created content can in?uence destination
image formation. Her study dissects the digitalization of tourism experience and offers
pertinent directions for marketing practice. Although images studies abound in this research
PAGE 222
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
genre, Aram Son (International tourists’ image of Zhangjiajie, China: content analysis of
travel blogs) advocates doing so via the use of content analysis as a way to draw marketing
insights from the growing number of travel blogs. He provides a practical example of doing
so in his study of a holiday destination in China and underscores the pros and cons of the
technique and what this means for practitioners.
Felicitas Evangelista, and Leonardo Dioko’s study (Interpersonal in?uence and destination
brand equity perceptions) also addresses the issue of social in?uence in shaping travelers’
destination brand equity and at the same time tests the validity of a brand equity measure for
consumer goods (Lassar et al., 1995) in the context of destination marketing. Their ?ndings
echo those of Munar’s and Son’s studies, concluding how travelers’ evolve brand equity for
destinations largely because of the normative in?uence of others. Their study discusses how
destination marketers can pro?t by adopting generally established brand equity measures in
the area of destination branding and marketing and incorporating the impact of social
in?uence. Altogether, however, the three studies in this undercurrent of issues hint toward
how existing DMOs and tourism marketers can cope with the dramatic and anarchic
environment introduced by the advent of Web 2.0 and social media.
To conclude, a concise review of developments in the ?rst decade of destination branding
research and the identi?cation of three undercurrents of conceptual challenges and
concerns hint of a growing indication that the body of knowledge emerging in this nascent
?eld is independently taking root and branching distinctly from the conceptual scaffolds of
already established ?elds, particularly fro the general streams of marketing and branding
research. This is manifest in the papers compiled in this special issue that, altogether, go
beyond conceptual re?nement and theoretical adaptations. They bear evidence of a fertile
ground for innovative and original research frameworks to thrive in the ?eld of destination
branding.
Any budding scienti?c endeavor will need to do more than take root and thrive, however.
Collective research within the destination branding ?eld must break free and carve new
streams from which knowledge, both existing and new, ?ow together, interact, interpreted
and reinterpreted. It must escape its exclusive grounding on the few, mostly
marketing-dominated, paradigms, yet remain connected, even as it intersects, connects
and merge with other streams of knowledge.
The chairs and organizers of the Destination Branding and Marketing Conference series
immensely applaud and appreciate the publisher (Emerald) and editors of the International
Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, notably its Editor-in-Chief, Arch
Woodside, for bringing to light and drawing attention to recent advances and developments
in the ?eld of destination branding in this special issue. Their perceptive and discerning
interest in this ?eld is inspiring to scholars and of strategic value to many destination
marketers. The guest editors of this special issue also acknowledge the valuable assistance
provided by Ms Wendy Tang of the Institute for Tourism Studies, Macau.
References
Blain, C., Levy, S.E. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2005), ‘‘Destination branding: insights and practices from
destination management organizations’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 328-38.
Boo, S., Busser, J. and Baloglu, S. (2009), ‘‘A model of customer-based brand equity and its application
to multiple destinations’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 219-31.
Buhalis, D. and Law, R. (2008), ‘‘Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years
on and 10 years after the internet – the state of eTourismresearch’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 609-23.
Byme, P. and Skinner, H. (2007), ‘‘International business tourism: destination Dublin or destination
Ireland?’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 22 Nos 3/4.
Cai, L.A. (2002), ‘‘Cooperative branding for rural destinations’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 720-42.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 223
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Caldwell, N. and Freire, J.R. (2004), ‘‘The differences between branding a country, a region and a city:
applying the brand box model’’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 1.
Cova, B. and White, T. (2010), ‘‘Counter-brand and alter-brand communities: the impact of Web 2.0 on
tribal marketing approaches’’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 256-70.
D’Hauteserre, A.-M. (2001), ‘‘Destination branding in a hostile environment’’, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 39 No. 3.
Deshpande, R. (1983), ‘‘‘Paradigms lost’: on theory and method in research in marketing’’, The Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 101-10.
Dodds, R. and Joppe, M. (2005), CSR in the Tourism Industry? The Status of and Potential for
Certi?cation, Codes of Conduct and Guidelines, IFC/World Bank, Washington, DC.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), ‘‘Building theories from case study research’’, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, p. 19.
Ekinci, Y. and Hosany, S. (2006), ‘‘Destination personality: an application of brand personality to tourism
destinations’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 127-39.
Ekinci, Y., Sirakaya-Turk, E. and Baloglu, S. (2007), ‘‘Host image and destination personality’’, Tourism
Analysis, Vol. 12 Nos 5/6, pp. 433-46.
Font, X. (2002), ‘‘Environmental certi?cation in tourism and hospitality: progress, process and
prospects’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 197-205.
Font, X. and Buckley, R. (2001), Tourism Ecolabelling: Certi?cation and Promotion of Sustainable
Management, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, CT.
Font, X., Sanabria, R. and Skinner, E. (2003), ‘‘Sustainable tourism and ecotourism certi?cation: raising
standards and bene?ts’’, Journal of Ecotourism, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 213-18.
Gertner, R.K., Berger, K.A. and Gertner, D. (2006), ‘‘Country-dot-com: marketing and branding
destinations online’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 21 Nos 2/3, pp. 105-16.
Gnoth, J. (1998), ‘‘Branding tourism destinations’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 758-60.
Gnoth, J. (2002), ‘‘Leveraging export brands through a tourism destination brand’’, J. Brand Manag.,
Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 262-80.
Hamill, J., Attard, D. and Stevenson, A. (2009), ‘‘National destination marketing organisations and
Web 2.0’’, Mercati e Competitivita´ , No. 1, p. 24.
Hankinson, G. (2007), ‘‘The management of destination brands: ?ve guiding principles based on recent
developments in corporate branding theory’’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3.
Hankinson, G. (2009), ‘‘Managing destination brands: establishing a theoretical foundation’’, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 25 Nos 1/2.
Henderson, J. (2007), ‘‘Uniquely Singapore? A case study in destination branding’’, Journal of Vacation
Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3.
Honey, M. and Rome, A. (2001), Protecting Paradise: Certi?cation Programs for Sustainable Tourismand
Ecotourism, Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, DC.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y. and Uysal, M. (2006), ‘‘Destination image and destination personality:
an application of branding theories to tourism places’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 5,
pp. 638-42.
Hudson, S. and Ritchie, J. (2009), ‘‘Branding a memorable destination experience. The case of ‘Brand
Canada’’’, The International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 11 No. 2.
Inversini, A., Marchiori, E., Dedekind, C. and Cantoni, L. (2010), ‘‘Applying a conceptual framework to
analyze online reputation of tourism destinations’’, in Gretzel, U., Law, R. and Fuchs, M. (Eds),
Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2010, Springer, Wien, New York, NY,
pp. 321-32.
Jørgensen, L.B. and Munar, A.M. (2009), ‘‘The Copenhagen way: stakeholder-driven destination
branding’’, in Jafari, J. and Cai, L.A. (Eds), Tourism Branding: Communities in Action. Bridging Tourism
Theory and Practice, Vol. 1, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 177-89.
PAGE 224
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Kerr, G. (2006), ‘‘From destination brand to location brand’’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 13
Nos 4/5.
Koeman, A., Worboys, G., De Lacy, T., Scott, A. and Lipman, G. (2002), ‘‘Green Globe: a global
environmental certi?cation program for travel and tourism’’, Ecotourism and Certi?cation: Setting
Standards in Practice, pp. 299-324.
Konecnik, M. and Go, F. (2008), ‘‘Tourism destination brand identity: the case of Slovenia’’, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 177-89.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), ‘‘Measuring customer-based brand equity’’, The Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, p. 11.
Marzano, G. and Scott, N. (2009), ‘‘Power in destination branding’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 36
No. 2, pp. 247-67.
Medina, L.K. (2005), ‘‘Ecotourismand certi?cation: confronting the principles and pragmatics of socially
responsible tourism’’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 281-95.
Morgan, N.J. and Pritchard, A. (2005), ‘‘Promoting niche tourism destination brands: case studies of
New Zealand and Wales’’, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 12 No. 1.
Morgan, N.J., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, R. (2003), ‘‘Destination branding and the role of the
stakeholders: the case of New Zealand’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, p. 285.
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Pride, R. (Eds) (2001), Destination Branding – Creating the Unique
Destination Proposition, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Pride, R. (Eds) (2004), Destination Branding, 2nd ed.,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Morrison, A.M., Hsieh, S. and Wang, C.Y. (1992), ‘‘Certi?cation in the travel and tourism industry’’,
Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 32-40.
Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P. and Moscardo, G. (2007a), ‘‘Destination brand personality: visitor
perceptions of a regional tourism destination’’, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 12 Nos 5/6, pp. 419-32.
Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P. and Moscardo, G. (2007b), ‘‘Linking travel motivation, tourist self-image
and destination brand personality’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 45-59.
Murphy, L., Moscardo, G. and Benckendorff, P. (2007c), ‘‘Using brand personality to differentiate
regional tourism destinations’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46 No. 1.
Niininen, O., Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y. and Airey, D. (2007), ‘‘Building a place brand: a case study of Surrey
Hills’’, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 12 Nos 5/6, pp. 371-85.
Pike, S. (2005), ‘‘Tourism destination branding complexity’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 14 Nos 4/5, p. 258.
Pike, S. (2007), ‘‘Consumer-based brand equity for destinations: practical DMO performance
measures’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 1.
Pike, S. (2009), ‘‘Destination brand positions of a competitive set of near-home destinations’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 857-66.
Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N.J. (2001), ‘‘Culture, identity and tourismrepresentation: marketing Cymru or
Wales?’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 167-79.
Pu¨ hringer, S. and Taylor, A. (2008), ‘‘A practitioner’s report on blogs as a potential source of destination
marketing intelligence’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 14, pp. 177-87.
Ritchie, B.J.R. and Ritchie, R.J.B. (1998), ‘‘The branding of tourismdestinations: past achievements and
future challenges’’, in Keller, P. (Ed.), Annual Congress of the International Association of Scienti?c
Experts in Tourism, Destination Marketing: Scopes and Limitations, International Association of Scienti?c
Experts in Tourism, Marrakech, Morocco, pp. 89-116.
Rivera, J. (2002), ‘‘Assessing a voluntary environmental initiative in the developing world: the Costa
Rican certi?cation for sustainable tourism’’, Policy Sciences, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 333-60.
Schmallegger, D. and Carson, D. (2008), ‘‘Blogs in tourism: changing approaches to information
exchange’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, p. 99.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 225
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Sigala, M. and Marinidis, D. (2010), ‘‘DMOs, e-democracy and collaborative destination management:
an implementation framework’’, in Gretzel, U., Law, R. and Fuchs, M. (Eds), Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 235-46.
Sood, S., Woodside, A., Kattiyapornpong, U. and Miller, K. (2009), ‘‘Assessing perceived destination
image and brand equity through Web 2.0’’, Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference, Honolulu, HI,
21-24 June 2009, Travel and Tourism Research Association, available at:http://hdl.handle.net/10536/
DRO/DU:30016730
Tarrant, C. (1989), ‘‘UK hotel industry – market restructuring and the need to respond to customer
demands’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 187-91.
Tourism Management (2007), ‘‘International Conference on Destination Branding and Marketing for
Regional Tourism Development, Macau S.A.R., China, 8-10 December 2005’’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 630-1.
Tribe, J. (1997), ‘‘The indiscipline of tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 638-57.
Tribe, J. (2004), ‘‘Knowing about tourism’’, in Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L. (Eds), Qualitative Research
in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies, Routledge, London, p. 46.
Ulrike, G., Xiang, Z., Wo¨ ber, K. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2007), ‘‘Deconstructing destination perceptions,
experiences, stories and internet search: text analysis in tourism research’’, in Woodside, A.G. and
Martin, D. (Eds), TourismManagement: Analysis, Behavior and Strategy, CAB International, Wallingford,
CT, p. 339.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968), General SystemTheory: Foundations, Development, Applications, G. Braziller,
New York, NY.
Wenger, A. (2008), ‘‘Analysis of travel bloggers’ characteristics and their communication about Austria
as a tourism destination’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 14, pp. 169-76.
About the authors
Leonardo (Don) A.N. Dioko, PhD is Professor at the Institute for Tourism Studies of Macau
and Director of its International Tourism Research Centre (ITRC). He teaches courses in
marketing, consumer behavior and tourism. As Director of ITRC, he oversees and conducts
much major policy research commissioned by the Macau S.A.R. Government on issues
regarding tourism impacts, marketing and management, most notable of which are those
relating to rapid tourism growth, tourism-carrying capacity, liveability and destination
branding. Leonardo A.N. Dioko is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected]
Rich Harrill is Director of the International Tourism Research Institute at the University of
South Carolina, School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management. He also directs the
University’s Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Travel & Tourism Industry Center. The institute
provides both local and international projects and research, while the center focuses on US
tourism industry competitiveness. His academic and professional experience combines
tourism with economic development and urban planning, giving him an uncommon
perspective on and familiarity with all three.
PAGE 226
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Josip Mikulic, Katarina Milicevic, Damir Kresic. 2016. The relationship between brand strength and tourism intensity: empirical
evidence from the EU capital cities. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 10:1. . [Abstract] [PDF]
2. Leonardo (Don) A.N. Dioko. 2016. Progress and trends in destination branding and marketing – a brief and broad review.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 10:1. . [Abstract] [PDF]
3. Isabel Llodra-Riera, María Pilar Martínez-Ruiz, Ana Isabel Jiménez-Zarco, Alicia Izquierdo-Yusta. 2015. Assessing the influence
of social media on tourists’ motivations and image formation of a destination. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences
7:4, 458-482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Boyang Zhang, Marita Vos. 2014. Social media monitoring: aims, methods, and challenges for international companies. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal 19:4, 371-383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Stephen Lloyd. 2013. Jungian foundations for managing and performing secular pilgrimages. International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research 7:4, 375-393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_974517937.pdf
This introduction seeks to provide a broad review of scholarly developments in the nascent
field of destination branding spanning almost 12 years in order to locate the relevance and import of the
following nine papers compiled for this special issue on destination branding and marketing.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Affirmation, assimilation, and anarchy: critical undercurrents in destination branding
Leonardo A.N. Dioko Rich Harrill
Article information:
To cite this document:
Leonardo A.N. Dioko Rich Harrill, (2011),"Affirmation, assimilation, and anarchy: critical undercurrents in destination branding", International
J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 215 - 226
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111156916
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:16 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 60 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1818 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Ana María Munar, (2011),"Tourist-created content: rethinking destination branding", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 291-305http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111156989
Saila Saraniemi, (2011),"From destination image building to identity-based branding", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 3 pp. 247-254http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111156943
Melodena Stephens Balakrishnan, Ramzi Nekhili, Clifford Lewis, (2011),"Destination brand components", International J ournal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 4-25http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181111111726
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Guest editorial
Af?rmation, assimilation, and anarchy:
critical undercurrents in destination branding
Leonardo A.N. Dioko and Rich Harrill
Abstract
Purpose – This introduction seeks to provide a broad review of scholarly developments in the nascent
?eld of destination branding spanning almost 12 years in order to locate the relevance and import of the
following nine papers compiled for this special issue on destination branding and marketing.
Design/methodology/approach – A general review of literature is undertaken guided by an
epistemological approach to knowledge thus far generated by the destination branding ?eld, consistent
with the recommendation of Tribe, and in lieu of the common reductionist approach to identifying
themes. The background generated by the review is then used to introduce and assess the signi?cance
of the articles contained in this special issue.
Findings – Three undercurrents of critical issues implicated with the massive body of knowledge
generated by the ?rst decade of destination branding research are described and posited relations
between them are tentatively advanced. The undercurrents pertain primarily to matters of identity
af?rmation, inter-organizational assimilation and an unfolding anarchic environment for destination
branding research and practice. The papers in this special issue exhibit profound connections with the
different undercurrents.
Originality/value – Rather than summarize and classify achievements in destination branding research
over the last decade or so, this editorial argues that current and future research contends with larger
issues surrounding the ?eld’s core concern of destination branding and marketing.
Keywords Destination branding, Knowledge management, Marketing, Epistemology
Paper type General review
A
little more than a decade has transpired since the ?rst scholarly references to
destination branding were published (Gnoth, 1998; Pike, 2009; Ritchie and Ritchie,
1998). Early on, the fundamental research question posed was: Can nations, states,
places and destinations be branded and marketed in the same framework as consumer
products? A decade’s worth of research achievements by scholars in the tourism and
consumer marketing ?elds now convinces many from both academia and industry to
respond to that question in the positive. Within the ?rst decade of the millennium, several
destination branding campaigns were launched at the national level by various countries,
millions of dollars poured into research and subsequent implementation of promotional
activities on a global scale.
Unprecedented case studies tell of coordination and integration efforts across a variety of
organizations and between unlikely partners on scales and magnitudes never before
attempted. Indeed, the branding and marketing of destinations is most likely the ?eld in
which the largest spanning and most resource demanding practice of brand marketing is
being attempted, comparable only perhaps to brand marketing efforts in organizing the
quadrennial Olympic Games or the World Cup. So large is the scope and the impact so
profound on the psyche of consumers attuned to an globally-connected and multimedia
savvy generation that this ?rst decade of destination branding has introduced new
DOI 10.1108/17506181111156916 VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011, pp. 215-226, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 215
Leonardo (Don) A.N. Dioko
is a Professor at the Institute
for Tourism Studies, Macau,
China. Rich Harrill is a
Director at the Alfred P.
Sloan Foundation Travel &
Tourism Industry Center
and the International
Tourism Research Institute,
University of South
Carolina, Columbia, South
Carolina, USA.
Received: May 2010
Revised: July 2010
Accepted: October 2010
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
meanings, psychological dimensions, and conditioned responses to otherwise everyday
terms such as pure, amazing, 100 per cent, incredible, uniquely, world city and even objects
(ferns) and phrases such as ‘‘bloody hell.’’
Such enthusiasm and perceived success for a nascent ?eld is to be expected at the outset.
Destination branding’s impact has indeed been widespread and advocates argue it has
stimulated tourism; destination marketing organizations (DMOs) and national tourism
organizations (NTOs) now invariably and annually commit to substantial funding and
implement multi-year branding strategies. But the ?eld’s growing research record is not
completely unblemished and the overall impact of destination branding efforts also speaks
of occasional dismal results. Questions regarding the effectiveness of substantial funds
allocated to destination branding campaigns have emerged.
This introduction to the special issue of destination branding and marketing restates the
fundamental question ‘‘Can nations, states, places and destinations be branded and
marketed in the same framework as consumer products?’’ Only this time, it is once more
posed before a generation of scholars that have collectively committed almost a decade of
their research careers to the ?eld. It is also posed before new cohorts of scholars inspired by
the ?eld’s unanswered questions and conceptual challenges yet to be tackled. This
introduction will brie?y suggest to what extent the question has been answered as well as
posit why it remains, in large part, unanswered and relevant. For this to be realized, this
general review will brie?y outline and highlight key research developments over the course
of destination branding’s ?rst decade. It will then relate the articles compiled in this special
issue to identi?able undercurrents emerging from the substantial corpus of research in
destination branding from 1998 to late 2009. But ?rst, a historical overview is proffered.
A nascent ?eld
As a focus for research, destination branding is in its embryonic stage. In a broad review of
the ?eld Pike (2009) notes that the ?rst reference speci?c to branding destinations appeared
only in 1998 (Gnoth, 1998), citing an article reviewing papers presented by a special interest
group focusing on destination branding at the American Marketing Science conference.
Pike then characterizes the ten years between 1998 and 2007 as the decade of infancy for
destination branding studies, identifying 74 published articles on the incipient topic broadly
classi?ed as case studies (33 papers), papers dealing with brand management issues (28)
or papers of conceptual development (10), with three papers exploring web content issues.
The ?rst signi?cant tome of the ?eld was Morgan et al.’ s (2001) Destination Branding –
Creating the Unique Destination Proposition, soon followed by its 2nd edition (Morgan et al.,
2004). Both volumes served to consolidate and outline the streams of research emerging in
destination branding. Combining Pike’s (2009) overview of published journal articles and the
two edited collections of Morgan et al. (2001, 2004) reveals a rapidly evolving and growing
diversity of research activity from various scholars in the destination and tourism marketing
genre. Pike (2009) outlined that current academic streams of research focused on:
B destination brand identity;
B brand positioning; and
B destination brand equity measurement as well as tracking.
Morgan et al.’s (2001, 2004) edited volumes add practical and managerial bearing to the
?eld by advancing several themes and the inclusion of chapters written by and for
destination branding practitioners and consultants. The ?rst Destination Branding and
Marketing (DBM) Conference held in Macao at the end of 2005 (TourismManagement, 2007)
served as another vehicle to merge and outline incipient research currents. The follow up
conference in 2007 and the most recent series held in December 2009, from which the
collection of articles in this special issue of IJCTHR is drawn, re?ect both a continuation of
the themes recognized by Pike (2009), Morgan et al. (2001, 2004) and others, as well as a
movement into new ideas and heretofore untested propositions.
PAGE 216
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Altogether, themes emerging from the ?rst decade of destination branding research,
Morgan et al.’s (2001, 2004) two edited volumes and the DBM conference series broadly
straddle an expansive spectrum of destination branding issues including, but not limited to,
issues of governance, inter agency and inter regional cooperation, stakeholder involvement;
destination brand management and positioning of identity, symbolism and logo creation;
brand communication and forays into general notions of place or nation branding and
identity as well as the impact of new media and the web.
While many studies comprising the research corpus of destination branding are empirical in
nature, a considerable number of research pertain to case studies, which deserves some
elaboration (Hudson and Ritchie, 2009; Marzano and Scott, 2009; Konecnik and Go, 2008;
Henderson, 2007; Niininen et al., 2007; Morgan and Pritchard, 2005; Morgan et al., 2003).
Though weak in generality, case studies provide unparalleled background information and
historical perspective on which scholars erect strong foundations for theory building
(Eisenhardt, 1989). More importantly, case studies indicate the complexity of issues involved
in the study of emergent areas (Pike, 2005; Morgan et al., 2003; Pritchard and Morgan,
2001). The preponderance of case studies in the destination-branding genre indicates a
cautious approach by scholars to avoid blindly importing established frameworks. The
prevalence of case study methods is indicative of earnest efforts aimed toward de?ning and
identifying original as well as unique models more suited to understanding the intricacy of
conceptual connections in and native to destination branding phenomenon. Put simply, case
studies not only signal a ?eld’s novelty; their abundance indicate an intense search for
well-grounded frameworks free from relying merely on a hypothesis-testing tradition of
research (Deshpande, 1983).
Another point readers should consider as they go through the articles in this special issue is
that the evolving literature on destination branding proceeds in parallel with developments in
the general marketing and branding literature, from which the majority of paradigms and
frameworks used to understand destination branding emanate. Thus, one often sees articles
that import theoretical and conceptual frameworks from the wider marketing genre into the
context of destination or nation-place. Because destination-branding studies draw
principally on the general marketing and branding literature, scholars are simultaneously
challenged on two fronts. The ?rst is to provide suf?cient validation of branding and
marketing concepts within a destination-marketing context.
A second challenge involves modifying established principles or advancing new ones that
would be native to the ?eld, hopefully and eventually contributing back into the wider
marketing genre. This, of course, is easier said than accomplished. Scholars with interest in
destination branding and marketing therefore face a dichotomous risk in pursuing, on one
hand, a research agenda towards con?rming or clarifying destination-marketing problems
employing already established frameworks, in which the challenge lies in demonstrating
contextual validity, problems of generalizability and overcoming the lack of originality, or, on
the other, a research agenda that breaks new ground, the primary drawback for which is
committing research time and effort that may prove barren, however novel and innovative
the approach.
Conceptual re?nement and theoretical adaptation
Has the ?eld of destination branding research yielded enough knowledge to answer its
fundamental question? Can destinations be branded? A quali?ed look at the research record
would tend support the thesis. In so far as the functional techniques and managerial issues
of brand identity development (incorporating, among others, logo design), image analysis,
segmentation and positioning as well as promotion and communication are concerned,
research in destination branding has yielded signi?cant advances. That is, suf?cient
evidence exist supporting the idea destinations can be branded but only in so far as one
considers nations, places and states as objects for tourist consumption, akin to tangible as
well as intangible goods or services, though certainly they are more complex construction.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 217
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The strides that have been made in re?ning marketing concepts and the adaption of
established frameworks in the context of tourism and destination marketing practice help
make this possible. Achievements in this type of research are exempli?ed, though not limited
to, by the ?ne tuning of constructs such as brand equity, brand image, loyalty and brand
personality for application in tourism brand settings (Ekinci et al., 2007; Murphy,
Benckendorff and Moscardo, 2007a, b; Murphy, Moscardo and Benckendorff, 2007; Pike,
2007; Ekinci and Hosany, 2006; Hosany et al., 2006) or by adaptations of product branding
frameworks for destinations (Boo et al., 2009; Caldwell and Freire, 2004; Cai, 2002).
The applicability of branding principles in the context of destinations is not the only
fundamental research question in the genre of destination branding and marketing
scholarship. Clearly, a considerable number of studies have posed functional,
philosophical, as well as strategic research problems on the nature and practice of
destination branding management.
Undercurrents and unanswered problems
Pike’s (2009) summarization of 74 relevant destination branding articles spanning the last
ten years into three thematic research streams provide a neat interpretation and organization
of the state of destination branding research. His encapsulation, however, is functional in
orientation, perceiving and summing up the corpus destination branding research as a
linear stream of management issues classi?able into operational stages, from brand identity
development, brand positioning and brand equity measurement and monitoring (tracking).
He therefore depicts destination branding research consistent somewhat with a systems
approach (Von Bertalanffy, 1968). In succeeding to provide a uni?ed context to understand
the ?eld’s nascent development, he and others (Hankinson, 2007; Blain et al., 2005)
inadvertently ignores crucial subtext that simultaneously in?uence the direction and
formation of relevant research questions.
Rather than identify themes and draw an alternative thematic, this introduction seeks to
delineate palpable conceptual movements and concerns from the same corpus of
destination branding research. They are here denoted and described by the term
undercurrents – in reference to the epistemological development of new subject areas that
occur inconspicuously and obscurely yet at the same time intelligible and often recognized
by scholars seeking to understand them.
Undercurrent 1: af?rmation
An undercurrent of issues in destination branding can be denoted as af?rmation, referring in
particular to the af?rmation of identity. Destination branding requires the identi?cation and
construction of place values, uniqueness, signature elements and personality; there is no
contention on this point from the perspective of managing and developing destination
brands. Many studies are in accord and rich in descriptive accounts that in itself, the
process of de?ning these elements for branding purposes is contentious (D’Hauteserre,
2001). Unsurprisingly, prescriptions of cooperation and stakeholder involvement are often
dispensed.
What is disregarded thus far is the more central and underlying challenge surrounding the
problem of acceptance and common af?rmation and recognition by all stakeholders
involved of the different elements necessary for branding success. It refers to the
simultaneous dynamics that occur among brand image construction, de?nition, building
consensus and the scope of the brand identity. Should cities’ tow the image or tag lines
given to them by an NTO tasked with branding the nation at the country level (Hudson and
Ritchie, 2009; Caldwell and Freire, 2004)? Whose image elements should be the basis for
branding a place: Perceived images of visitors or those of the host (Konecnik and Go,
2008)? Issues of identity af?rmation ground many controversies surrounding tourism
representation in terms of what stimuli should best represent the destination brand and who
best represents the destination’s essence (Pritchard and Morgan, 2001). Research
suggests that identity development and af?rmation is dif?cult to achieve because ‘‘attempts
PAGE 218
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
to in?uence and on occasion radically re-de?ne the perceived identities of places as tourist
destinations through branding have generated questions about motives and
consequences’’ (Henderson, 2007, p. 265). Destination branding is ultimately enshrouded
in controversies involving covert commercial agendas, misappropriation of symbols and
meanings, as well as issues of commodi?cation and repackaging.
What makes this undercurrent germane to destination branding phenomenon is the rise of
new nation-states, a more globalized and connected world, and an ever-rising trend in travel
and tourism. Developments in these areas over the last decade parallel the intellectual
advent and interest for destination branding and have thrust new questions into light that
deal with identity, authenticity, place-making (in lieu of place marketing), representation, and
ownership of place or place-related attributes – often controversial topics frequently
mentioned in popular media. In a fewhigh pro?le cases, this undercurrent touch on legal and
ownership matters of identity elements and litigation on who owns what can be af?rmed.
Undercurrent 2: assimilation
Another undercurrent of issues in the destination branding literature revolves around power
and politics. This undercurrent encompasses matters of certi?cations and standards on the
one hand as well as requisites of coordination, networking and integration among different
organizations, diverse stakeholders or community groups, and among elements of the
branding hierarchy (cities, regions and countries) on the other. In one sense issues drawn in
this undercurrent refer to problems of inclusion, subordination and formal commitments of
adherence (e.g. licensing) to common values and standards that de?ne a destination’s
brand (Kerr, 2006).
Caldwell and Freire (2004), for example, call for the branding of local and regional
destinations to be subordinate to country-level destination campaigns, advocating
functional aspects for the former and more emotive, representational aspects for the latter
in terms of brand building activities. (See also Byme and Skinner (2007).) In another sense
assimilation also can refer to the internal organizational dynamics of a DMO and its various
functional departments as they deal with external parties whose cooperation and
incorporation to the branding process is crucial for its success (Hankinson, 2009). A
study focusing on the evolution of logo design process undertaken by DMOs (Blain et al.,
2005), for example, revealed that only DMO executives rather than members were primarily
involved in the process and steering the eventual outcome. In effect, control and power
rested on a few which assimilated (subordinated) the opinions of others despite efforts to
make the process all-inclusive.
Describing in rich detail New Zealand’s early efforts in developing a country brand, Morgan
et al. (2003) deduced that the eventual de?ning of a brand vision and identity was as much if
not a little less signi?cant than being able to succeed in convincing a host of internal and
external public as well as private bodies to embrace the New Zealand brand. Indeed, power
and authority are probably more crucial factors in branding (Marzano and Scott, 2009) than
collaboration and consensus (Cai, 2002).
Finally, this undercurrent of assimilation also draws issues related to organizations and
destinations submitting to quality standards, processes and subordination to certi?cation
processes in order to obtain brand trust and credibility. Gnoth (2002) noted how a high
amount of managed cohesion is necessary to bring different elements of the brand to meet
quality standards, a reason he argues why destinations can ?nd it dif?cult to achieve
successful brands. The hotel industry is no stranger to this undercurrent; the daily remit of
hotel managers is to deliver consistent brand standards (Tarrant, 1989). Increasingly, an
offshoot of the global destination branding phenomenon is the prevalence and institution of
certi?cation standards (Morrison et al., 1992), some on a global scale, which tourism
companies, operators and destinations must meet to gain brand recognition, trust and
desired positioning.
There now exist in the tourism context certi?cation standards and international criteria in
eco-labeling and ecotourism (Medina, 2005; Font and Buckley, 2001), corporate social
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 219
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
responsibility (Dodds and Joppe, 2005), sustainable tourism management and
environmental practices (Font et al., 2003; Font, 2002; Rivera, 2002; Honey and Rome,
2001) and green practices (Koeman et al., 2002), among others.
The undercurrent of assimilation in destination branding thus articulate an unrecognized
groundswell of issues in which organizational goals are subordinated either to higher entities
or governing principles or values crucial for a branding program to succeed. It is possible to
viewthe undercurrent of assimilation issues as antithetical to af?rmation, if only to distinguish
one from the other. But it is equally possible, however, to view both as distinct, yet
simultaneous processes that interact in the process of destination branding development.
Co-branding efforts, for example, are viewable as cooperation that expands brand identity
elements between two existing brand elements, image or meanings (expanding what can be
af?rmed), yet co-branding also demands from partners a certain degree of assimilation in
terms of the organization involved or in the two co-branded elements.
In another sense, both assimilation and af?rmation could be seen as counteracting forces or
approaches to destination branding success, akin to a zero-sum game. Failure in achieving
identity af?rmation may be compensated by assimilation practices. Failure in assimilation,
on the other hand, can result in only limited scope of what identity elements can be utilized in
the construction of the destination brand.
Undercurrent 3: anarchy
A third undercurrent of issues in destination branding draws issues surrounding the rapid
development of Web 2.0, social media, and interactive processes (between brand owners
and users) eventually affecting the ultimate destination brand image and identity that
emerges. This undercurrent also covers the evolving phenomenon of brand co-creation and
internet user generated content whereby new social and networking media enable and
empower a digitized social and communication environment rich with intercourse occurring
therein among netizens elaborating on their travel experiences and providing substantial
reviews of destinations.
More signi?cantly, this undercurrent portends a serious movement toward wrestling
destination brand development, management, ownership and control from the hands of
DMOs, advertisers and tourism marketers. Though anarchy sounds extreme, the term
seems commensurate with a rapidly unfolding lexis in a marketing and branding ?eld
desperately coping with the rapid change wrought by Web 2.0 and seeking to incorporate
newly introduced terms such as, among others, tribes, e-democracy, online, counter brand
or alter brand communities.
Like a new river tributary being carved, this undercurrent is so recent that few references are
available on the issue in the more established tourism journals. A few, appearing beginning
2006, that do touch on it do so only in general terms and without advancing theoretical
framework to incorporate it in destination branding theory and practice (Buhalis and Law,
2008; Gertner et al., 2006). Even as academia and industry seek to understand its
implications and signi?cance (Sood et al., 2009), the most urgent issues de?ning this
undercurrent seemto be the ‘‘loss of control’’ and the ‘‘brand impact of user controlled social
media’’ (Hamill et al., 2009).
More recent developments point to researchers and practitioners focusing their attention on
analyzing user generated content (e.g. travel blogs) and assessing the implications for
destination brands (Pu¨ hringer and Taylor, 2008; Schmallegger and Carson, 2008; Wenger,
2008). Ulrike et al. (2007) catalogue several quantitative and qualitative techniques for
analyzing social media content in tourism marketing context thereby providing scholars and
destination marketers a means of coping with torrent of user generated content now
increasingly encroaching and undermining their brand architecture.
A few interesting ideas and potentially new paradigms are emerging from this undercurrent.
Jørgensen and Munar (2009), for example, allude to a need for a ‘‘dialogical process with
tourist’’ within the destination branding framework. To cope with ‘‘unof?cial information’’ that are
PAGE 220
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
now more popularly absorbed by Web 2.0 users, Inversini et al. (2010) advocate a construct
called destination online reputation, though how such a new metric relates to established
principles of brand equity, image and brand personality remains a research imperative.
Though calls for cooperation, stakeholder participation and collaboration – a theme of old –
still resonate in this undercurrent (Sigala and Marinidis, 2010), they are clearly inadequate in
confronting a new reality in which consumers are not just enabled and empowered to
co-construct but also to de-construct destination brands. Indeed, Cova and White (2010)
sound most uneasy in their investigation of the impact of tribal marketing or brand
communities, assessing their in?uence and power as posing signi?cant risk, potentially
dangerous opposition and threats to brand managers in their ability to undermine and offer
alter or counter brand offerings.
As an undercurrent of research, issues of anarchy in destination brand marketing may
develop as an entirely independent sub-branch of the ?eld. It is cast here as an undercurrent
not because it is new but because of its immense potential to erode or fuse the research
knowledge it will yield with the undercurrents of identity af?rmation and assimilation.
Undercurrents, not themes
In the sense that they are characterized in this paper, undercurrents are not factors that can
be modeled and quanti?ed and the limitations of this introductory precludes further
theorizing. A few conjectures as to how each undercurrent relates to each other can offer
some ideas to understanding their nature. Assimilation and af?rmation, for example, can be
seen as interacting dialectical forces in?uencing the outcome of managed approaches to
destination branding. (They are dialectic because their effects cancel each other out, as
proposed earlier.) It is harder to conjecture how the undercurrent of anarchy relates to the
?rst two since the scope of issues in this undercurrent seem exogenous or independent to
the ?rst two. Indeed, anarchy issues may be antithetical to a managed approach to branding
destinations and if so will demand new paradigms and models. Because the conceptual
challenges in the anarchy undercurrent suggest that Web 2.0 and tribal communities issues
will proceed regardless of research progress in managed destination branding, both
undercurrents will run simultaneously and parallel; if so, anarchy may well subsume the ?rst
two undercurrents. Finally, an alternate scenario is that progress in research within the two
undercurrents of af?rmation and assimilation will readjust its models and assumptions or
reorder established theoretical frameworks to incorporate the omnipresent challenges of an
anarchic environment to branding.
Undercurrents are not themes in the manner they are posited in this introduction. Themes
serve to pinpoint underlying or central ideas, explicitly (or, at the surface) or implicitly in a
known body of literature. Undercurrents on the other hand is merely a term used to denote
the purpose of this introduction: To uncover the imperceptible issues, problems and
questions that shadow the ?ndings of research conducted toward known issues of
destination branding.
The preceding conceptual undercurrents are promising in so far as they can help drive,
inform and direct new research streams and generate new and novel hypotheses, in
contrast to thematic consolidation which is reductionist and descriptive. Finally, this paper’s
use of undercurrents as opposed to themes abide by Tribe’s (1997, 2004) distinction
between the ‘‘business of tourism’’ and the ‘‘non-business aspects of tourism’’ in his
discourse on the epistemology of tourism wherein, he stresses, not only an interdisciplinary
development but extra-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary progress. It is the nature of
researchers to synthesize ideas.
Can all three undercurrents be characterized, as an exercise, as political in nature? Aren’t
identity af?rmation, power, politics, assimilation and anarchy concepts located in political
science? They may very well be, but in light of the embryonic stage the ?eld of destination
branding research is in and indeed, regardless of it, it is best not to categorize the
undercurrents in one discipline, following Tribe’s caveat that tourism should not be seen as
located in one discipline but rather as extra- and multi-disciplinary.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 221
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The compilation
The three undercurrents expounded on previously can facilitate locating and assessing the
relevance of this special issue collection. Though it is human tendency to organize and
classify, the nine papers in this special issue cannot be pigeon holed into thematic
categories. The editors of the 3rd Destination Branding and Marketing Conference did not
have any a priori themes in shaping the contents of this special issue. Nevertheless, a
posteriori examination of the collection reveals a degree of consistency with the three
undercurrents of challenges highlighted earlier.
The ?rst sub-group of papers are consistent with the undercurrent of identity af?rmation in so
far as the papers develop the notion linking destination branding with ‘‘the coming of age’’ of
nations, states and communities in a more globalized world. Noel Scott, Ann Suwaree
Ashton, Peiyi Ding, and Honggang Xu tackle this under the context of co-branding (Tourism
branding and nation building in China), stressing the complexity of branding a nation (China)
and how it can use branding as a ‘‘tool of self-af?rmation.’’ Likewise, John Nadeau, Norm
O’Reilly, and Louise Heslop (China’s Olympic destination: tourist evaluations of China and
the games) took advantage of the 2008 Olympic Games to observe China’s determination to
change its world image via hosting the summer games, and how much the perceptions of a
destination as a country and separately as a tourist destination are interwoven.
Ultimately, they provide a critical evaluation of the ef?cacy of holding mega-events such as
the Olympics in altering destination brand and image. In her work of describing in great
detail the destination brand building activities and the various processes undertaken in
building a brand, Saila Saraniemi (From destination image building to identity-based
branding) asserts that at its root, destination brand building is identity building, a process
made complex by the multiple stakeholders involved in the process.
A second group of papers in this special issue provide not only practical and applied
relevance to destination branding and marketing. These papers also deal with the
undercurrent of assimilation wherein stakeholder co-creation and participative involvement
in the branding process are crucial. For example, issues of co-branding and brand
development that incorporates various stakeholders is advanced more speci?cally in terms
of the segmentation process by Aaron Tkaczynski and Sharyn Rundle-Thiele (Segmenting
destinations: in the eyes of the stakeholders), wherein they advocate a two-stage process of
segmentation.
Assimilation issues presuppose that brands embody the level of trust consumers have in
products. If so, then certi?cation and independent evaluation of a destination’s attributes are
essential, in the same way that goods and services subject themselves to independent
certi?cation for certain standards. Kirk Bowman (Sustainable tourism certi?cation and state
capacity: keep it local, simple and fuzzy) reports his investigation into the advantages and
disadvantages of such a process among destinations seeking sustainable tourism
certi?cation. In it he critiques various elements certi?cation processes, suggesting better
measures for undertaking such programs and the implications for branding destinations.
In similar light, Andrea Insch’s contribution (Conceptualization and anatomy of green
destination brands) emphasizes the development of speci?c positioning attributes for
destination brands. In her study, she deconstructs what makes a destination to be perceived
as a green destination brand, using the case of New Zealand. She builds her thesis from an
interesting departure point: The assumption that not all eco-touristic destinations are
necessarily green destination brands. Her paper thus provides a good reference for
engineering destination attribute positioning, identity and brand building and the
assimilation process of what can or can’t be included in a nation’s brand identity.
Finally, a third group of papers highlights the undercurrent of anarchy issues, in particular,
the role of newly evolving social media and its impact on building destination image and
brand equity. Ana Munar’s contribution (Tourist created content: rethinking destination
branding) breaks ground by exploring how tourist-created content can in?uence destination
image formation. Her study dissects the digitalization of tourism experience and offers
pertinent directions for marketing practice. Although images studies abound in this research
PAGE 222
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
genre, Aram Son (International tourists’ image of Zhangjiajie, China: content analysis of
travel blogs) advocates doing so via the use of content analysis as a way to draw marketing
insights from the growing number of travel blogs. He provides a practical example of doing
so in his study of a holiday destination in China and underscores the pros and cons of the
technique and what this means for practitioners.
Felicitas Evangelista, and Leonardo Dioko’s study (Interpersonal in?uence and destination
brand equity perceptions) also addresses the issue of social in?uence in shaping travelers’
destination brand equity and at the same time tests the validity of a brand equity measure for
consumer goods (Lassar et al., 1995) in the context of destination marketing. Their ?ndings
echo those of Munar’s and Son’s studies, concluding how travelers’ evolve brand equity for
destinations largely because of the normative in?uence of others. Their study discusses how
destination marketers can pro?t by adopting generally established brand equity measures in
the area of destination branding and marketing and incorporating the impact of social
in?uence. Altogether, however, the three studies in this undercurrent of issues hint toward
how existing DMOs and tourism marketers can cope with the dramatic and anarchic
environment introduced by the advent of Web 2.0 and social media.
To conclude, a concise review of developments in the ?rst decade of destination branding
research and the identi?cation of three undercurrents of conceptual challenges and
concerns hint of a growing indication that the body of knowledge emerging in this nascent
?eld is independently taking root and branching distinctly from the conceptual scaffolds of
already established ?elds, particularly fro the general streams of marketing and branding
research. This is manifest in the papers compiled in this special issue that, altogether, go
beyond conceptual re?nement and theoretical adaptations. They bear evidence of a fertile
ground for innovative and original research frameworks to thrive in the ?eld of destination
branding.
Any budding scienti?c endeavor will need to do more than take root and thrive, however.
Collective research within the destination branding ?eld must break free and carve new
streams from which knowledge, both existing and new, ?ow together, interact, interpreted
and reinterpreted. It must escape its exclusive grounding on the few, mostly
marketing-dominated, paradigms, yet remain connected, even as it intersects, connects
and merge with other streams of knowledge.
The chairs and organizers of the Destination Branding and Marketing Conference series
immensely applaud and appreciate the publisher (Emerald) and editors of the International
Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, notably its Editor-in-Chief, Arch
Woodside, for bringing to light and drawing attention to recent advances and developments
in the ?eld of destination branding in this special issue. Their perceptive and discerning
interest in this ?eld is inspiring to scholars and of strategic value to many destination
marketers. The guest editors of this special issue also acknowledge the valuable assistance
provided by Ms Wendy Tang of the Institute for Tourism Studies, Macau.
References
Blain, C., Levy, S.E. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2005), ‘‘Destination branding: insights and practices from
destination management organizations’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 328-38.
Boo, S., Busser, J. and Baloglu, S. (2009), ‘‘A model of customer-based brand equity and its application
to multiple destinations’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 219-31.
Buhalis, D. and Law, R. (2008), ‘‘Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years
on and 10 years after the internet – the state of eTourismresearch’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 609-23.
Byme, P. and Skinner, H. (2007), ‘‘International business tourism: destination Dublin or destination
Ireland?’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 22 Nos 3/4.
Cai, L.A. (2002), ‘‘Cooperative branding for rural destinations’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 720-42.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 223
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Caldwell, N. and Freire, J.R. (2004), ‘‘The differences between branding a country, a region and a city:
applying the brand box model’’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 1.
Cova, B. and White, T. (2010), ‘‘Counter-brand and alter-brand communities: the impact of Web 2.0 on
tribal marketing approaches’’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 256-70.
D’Hauteserre, A.-M. (2001), ‘‘Destination branding in a hostile environment’’, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 39 No. 3.
Deshpande, R. (1983), ‘‘‘Paradigms lost’: on theory and method in research in marketing’’, The Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 101-10.
Dodds, R. and Joppe, M. (2005), CSR in the Tourism Industry? The Status of and Potential for
Certi?cation, Codes of Conduct and Guidelines, IFC/World Bank, Washington, DC.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), ‘‘Building theories from case study research’’, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, p. 19.
Ekinci, Y. and Hosany, S. (2006), ‘‘Destination personality: an application of brand personality to tourism
destinations’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 127-39.
Ekinci, Y., Sirakaya-Turk, E. and Baloglu, S. (2007), ‘‘Host image and destination personality’’, Tourism
Analysis, Vol. 12 Nos 5/6, pp. 433-46.
Font, X. (2002), ‘‘Environmental certi?cation in tourism and hospitality: progress, process and
prospects’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 197-205.
Font, X. and Buckley, R. (2001), Tourism Ecolabelling: Certi?cation and Promotion of Sustainable
Management, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, CT.
Font, X., Sanabria, R. and Skinner, E. (2003), ‘‘Sustainable tourism and ecotourism certi?cation: raising
standards and bene?ts’’, Journal of Ecotourism, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 213-18.
Gertner, R.K., Berger, K.A. and Gertner, D. (2006), ‘‘Country-dot-com: marketing and branding
destinations online’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 21 Nos 2/3, pp. 105-16.
Gnoth, J. (1998), ‘‘Branding tourism destinations’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 758-60.
Gnoth, J. (2002), ‘‘Leveraging export brands through a tourism destination brand’’, J. Brand Manag.,
Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 262-80.
Hamill, J., Attard, D. and Stevenson, A. (2009), ‘‘National destination marketing organisations and
Web 2.0’’, Mercati e Competitivita´ , No. 1, p. 24.
Hankinson, G. (2007), ‘‘The management of destination brands: ?ve guiding principles based on recent
developments in corporate branding theory’’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3.
Hankinson, G. (2009), ‘‘Managing destination brands: establishing a theoretical foundation’’, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 25 Nos 1/2.
Henderson, J. (2007), ‘‘Uniquely Singapore? A case study in destination branding’’, Journal of Vacation
Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3.
Honey, M. and Rome, A. (2001), Protecting Paradise: Certi?cation Programs for Sustainable Tourismand
Ecotourism, Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, DC.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y. and Uysal, M. (2006), ‘‘Destination image and destination personality:
an application of branding theories to tourism places’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 5,
pp. 638-42.
Hudson, S. and Ritchie, J. (2009), ‘‘Branding a memorable destination experience. The case of ‘Brand
Canada’’’, The International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 11 No. 2.
Inversini, A., Marchiori, E., Dedekind, C. and Cantoni, L. (2010), ‘‘Applying a conceptual framework to
analyze online reputation of tourism destinations’’, in Gretzel, U., Law, R. and Fuchs, M. (Eds),
Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2010, Springer, Wien, New York, NY,
pp. 321-32.
Jørgensen, L.B. and Munar, A.M. (2009), ‘‘The Copenhagen way: stakeholder-driven destination
branding’’, in Jafari, J. and Cai, L.A. (Eds), Tourism Branding: Communities in Action. Bridging Tourism
Theory and Practice, Vol. 1, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 177-89.
PAGE 224
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Kerr, G. (2006), ‘‘From destination brand to location brand’’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 13
Nos 4/5.
Koeman, A., Worboys, G., De Lacy, T., Scott, A. and Lipman, G. (2002), ‘‘Green Globe: a global
environmental certi?cation program for travel and tourism’’, Ecotourism and Certi?cation: Setting
Standards in Practice, pp. 299-324.
Konecnik, M. and Go, F. (2008), ‘‘Tourism destination brand identity: the case of Slovenia’’, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 177-89.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), ‘‘Measuring customer-based brand equity’’, The Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, p. 11.
Marzano, G. and Scott, N. (2009), ‘‘Power in destination branding’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 36
No. 2, pp. 247-67.
Medina, L.K. (2005), ‘‘Ecotourismand certi?cation: confronting the principles and pragmatics of socially
responsible tourism’’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 281-95.
Morgan, N.J. and Pritchard, A. (2005), ‘‘Promoting niche tourism destination brands: case studies of
New Zealand and Wales’’, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 12 No. 1.
Morgan, N.J., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, R. (2003), ‘‘Destination branding and the role of the
stakeholders: the case of New Zealand’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, p. 285.
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Pride, R. (Eds) (2001), Destination Branding – Creating the Unique
Destination Proposition, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Pride, R. (Eds) (2004), Destination Branding, 2nd ed.,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Morrison, A.M., Hsieh, S. and Wang, C.Y. (1992), ‘‘Certi?cation in the travel and tourism industry’’,
Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 32-40.
Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P. and Moscardo, G. (2007a), ‘‘Destination brand personality: visitor
perceptions of a regional tourism destination’’, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 12 Nos 5/6, pp. 419-32.
Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P. and Moscardo, G. (2007b), ‘‘Linking travel motivation, tourist self-image
and destination brand personality’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 45-59.
Murphy, L., Moscardo, G. and Benckendorff, P. (2007c), ‘‘Using brand personality to differentiate
regional tourism destinations’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46 No. 1.
Niininen, O., Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y. and Airey, D. (2007), ‘‘Building a place brand: a case study of Surrey
Hills’’, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 12 Nos 5/6, pp. 371-85.
Pike, S. (2005), ‘‘Tourism destination branding complexity’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 14 Nos 4/5, p. 258.
Pike, S. (2007), ‘‘Consumer-based brand equity for destinations: practical DMO performance
measures’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 1.
Pike, S. (2009), ‘‘Destination brand positions of a competitive set of near-home destinations’’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 857-66.
Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N.J. (2001), ‘‘Culture, identity and tourismrepresentation: marketing Cymru or
Wales?’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 167-79.
Pu¨ hringer, S. and Taylor, A. (2008), ‘‘A practitioner’s report on blogs as a potential source of destination
marketing intelligence’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 14, pp. 177-87.
Ritchie, B.J.R. and Ritchie, R.J.B. (1998), ‘‘The branding of tourismdestinations: past achievements and
future challenges’’, in Keller, P. (Ed.), Annual Congress of the International Association of Scienti?c
Experts in Tourism, Destination Marketing: Scopes and Limitations, International Association of Scienti?c
Experts in Tourism, Marrakech, Morocco, pp. 89-116.
Rivera, J. (2002), ‘‘Assessing a voluntary environmental initiative in the developing world: the Costa
Rican certi?cation for sustainable tourism’’, Policy Sciences, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 333-60.
Schmallegger, D. and Carson, D. (2008), ‘‘Blogs in tourism: changing approaches to information
exchange’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, p. 99.
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 225
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Sigala, M. and Marinidis, D. (2010), ‘‘DMOs, e-democracy and collaborative destination management:
an implementation framework’’, in Gretzel, U., Law, R. and Fuchs, M. (Eds), Information and
Communication Technologies in Tourism, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 235-46.
Sood, S., Woodside, A., Kattiyapornpong, U. and Miller, K. (2009), ‘‘Assessing perceived destination
image and brand equity through Web 2.0’’, Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference, Honolulu, HI,
21-24 June 2009, Travel and Tourism Research Association, available at:http://hdl.handle.net/10536/
DRO/DU:30016730
Tarrant, C. (1989), ‘‘UK hotel industry – market restructuring and the need to respond to customer
demands’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 187-91.
Tourism Management (2007), ‘‘International Conference on Destination Branding and Marketing for
Regional Tourism Development, Macau S.A.R., China, 8-10 December 2005’’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 630-1.
Tribe, J. (1997), ‘‘The indiscipline of tourism’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 638-57.
Tribe, J. (2004), ‘‘Knowing about tourism’’, in Phillimore, J. and Goodson, L. (Eds), Qualitative Research
in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies, Routledge, London, p. 46.
Ulrike, G., Xiang, Z., Wo¨ ber, K. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2007), ‘‘Deconstructing destination perceptions,
experiences, stories and internet search: text analysis in tourism research’’, in Woodside, A.G. and
Martin, D. (Eds), TourismManagement: Analysis, Behavior and Strategy, CAB International, Wallingford,
CT, p. 339.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968), General SystemTheory: Foundations, Development, Applications, G. Braziller,
New York, NY.
Wenger, A. (2008), ‘‘Analysis of travel bloggers’ characteristics and their communication about Austria
as a tourism destination’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 14, pp. 169-76.
About the authors
Leonardo (Don) A.N. Dioko, PhD is Professor at the Institute for Tourism Studies of Macau
and Director of its International Tourism Research Centre (ITRC). He teaches courses in
marketing, consumer behavior and tourism. As Director of ITRC, he oversees and conducts
much major policy research commissioned by the Macau S.A.R. Government on issues
regarding tourism impacts, marketing and management, most notable of which are those
relating to rapid tourism growth, tourism-carrying capacity, liveability and destination
branding. Leonardo A.N. Dioko is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected]
Rich Harrill is Director of the International Tourism Research Institute at the University of
South Carolina, School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management. He also directs the
University’s Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Travel & Tourism Industry Center. The institute
provides both local and international projects and research, while the center focuses on US
tourism industry competitiveness. His academic and professional experience combines
tourism with economic development and urban planning, giving him an uncommon
perspective on and familiarity with all three.
PAGE 226
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 5 NO. 3 2011
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Josip Mikulic, Katarina Milicevic, Damir Kresic. 2016. The relationship between brand strength and tourism intensity: empirical
evidence from the EU capital cities. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 10:1. . [Abstract] [PDF]
2. Leonardo (Don) A.N. Dioko. 2016. Progress and trends in destination branding and marketing – a brief and broad review.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 10:1. . [Abstract] [PDF]
3. Isabel Llodra-Riera, María Pilar Martínez-Ruiz, Ana Isabel Jiménez-Zarco, Alicia Izquierdo-Yusta. 2015. Assessing the influence
of social media on tourists’ motivations and image formation of a destination. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences
7:4, 458-482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Boyang Zhang, Marita Vos. 2014. Social media monitoring: aims, methods, and challenges for international companies. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal 19:4, 371-383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Stephen Lloyd. 2013. Jungian foundations for managing and performing secular pilgrimages. International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research 7:4, 375-393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
1
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_974517937.pdf