Destination Image And Brand Personality Of New Zealand Marketing Essay

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015

The sector of tourism is one of the fastest growing economic sectors in the world according to the World Tourism Organisation. For the last sixty years the international tourism arrivals expanded from 25 million to reach 940 million by 2010. While in 1950 the top 15 destinations absorbed 88% of the international arrivals, in 1970 the proportion was 75% and 55% in 2010, reflecting the emergence of new destinations, many of them in developing countries (WTO, 2011). As a result the competition in tourist business is fiercer than ever. Nowadays different places are competing more and more to increase their share of tourists, investments and business (Kotler, et al., 1993).

Morgan, et al., (2004) argue that service and facilities are no longer differentiators, because today most of the destinations have superb five-star resorts, attractions and services and every country claims unique culture and heritage. Furthermore tourists are spoilt by the huge choice of destinations that are very similar and consequently very substitutable (Pike, 2005). As a result, the need for destinations to portray a unique identity is more critical than ever (Morgan, et al., 2004). Hence to distinguish one destination from another and to attract more tourists, a certain image has to be created. In response to the global competition destination marketing organizations are employing branding initiatives to attract travelers and expenditures to their destination (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006).

Branding and brand image are well explored in the tourism and marketing literature, while brand personality, and its application to places and more specifically to tourist destinations, is relatively new and unexplored (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006). Murphy, et al. (2007) suggest that a brand personality need to be established in order to achieve effective destination brand that is linked to the visitor's self-image.

New Zealand is relatively small country overshadowed by a more powerful and bigger neighbor in the shape of Australia. Among the British consumer the existing perceptions of New Zealand happened to be quite negative (Dinnie, 2008). Furthermore the British consumers tended perceive New Zealand as an English suburb, mostly bungalows populated by sleepy people (Dinnie, 2008).

However, in order to change the existing negative perceptions towards the destination Tourism New Zealand created '100% Pure New Zealand' brand that was introduced for first time in July 1999. It was the first time New Zealand had one message in all of its tourism markets around the world. The brand was intended to provide a platform to double the country's foreign exchange receipts by 2005 (Tourism New Zealand, 2012). The campaign was developed to be succinct and clear - to communicate a single message about New Zealand that will capture the imagination of the consumers. The campaign happened to be real success the international arrivals increased from 1,56 million in 1999 to 2,38 million in 2005 (Ministry of Economic Development, 2011). Later the campaign evolved to 'New Zealand 100% Pure' that aimed to capture the imagination of different consumers around the world by communicating the special combination of activities, landscape, people and culture that create a uniquely New Zealand experience (Tourism New Zealand, 2012). The latest message introduced by Tourism New Zealand 'New Zealand 100% Pure You' aimed to personalize the holiday experience and bring to life the diverse tourism experiences available in the destination.

Problem Statement

Morgan, et al.(2004) suggests that branding is one of the most powerful marketing tools available to the destination marketers who are facing with tourists looking for experience and lifestyle fullfilment rather than tangiable elements of the product such as attractions and hotel accomodation. Destination branding allows to create unique identity, to reduce destination substitutability and to differentiate from the competitive destinations. Destination branding incorporate cunsumers perceptions about the destination identity as reflected by their previous knowledge (Cai, 2002).

Brand personality and brand image studies are relatively well studied in the generic marketing field while their application to tourist destinations is quite new and relatively unexplored area. Murphy, et al. (2007) argues that effective destination branding have to establish a brand image and personality that links to the consumer's self-image. Furthermore Ahmed (1991) claims that successful destination marketing depends mostly on the way the consumers perceive the destination. Destination images quite often are stereotypes that represent only an extreme simplification of the reality (Kotler, et al., 1993). Destination image and personality influences a consumer's decision making process when an alternative destination is considered (Ahmed, 1991). Consumer's attitudes and actions towards the choice of a holiday destination are highly influenced by the destination image (Jaffe & Nebenzahl, 2001). Consequently to manage and to differentiate successfully destination image and personality, a clear understanding of the perceived image is needed of the potential and existing consumers. Researching the existing perceptions of potential visitors about the destination may provide the weaknesses and the strengths of the destination and may reveal an existing perceptual gap between the current image of the destination and the desired image.

Exploring the potential perceptual gap between the desired image of the destination and the actual image of the potential customers could be beneficial and could be utilized by the destination management organization. The study might be used to customize communication efforts, destination offerings, packages, and communication channels on a national level.

Value of this research

This research is important for number of reasons. First of all this study will attempt to shed a light on the application of branding theories to tourism destination. Destination image is relatively well investigated area while the application of brand personality to tourism destinations relatively new one and the research on application of branding personality to destinations is quite sparse has not been studied that often (Sahin & Baloglu, 2011; Hosany, et al., 2006). For that reason, this study is going to evaluate critically models and frameworks relevant to destination branding in terms of brand image and personality and their application to a tourism destination.

On the other hand the empirical research of this study will contribute in researching a potential perceptual gap between the desired image and personality of the destination and the current perceptions of potential visitors. Discovering and recognition of existing perceptions about the destination may help identify factors that will contribute to the success of destination positioning efforts (Ahmed, 1991). Such information could be used by destination management organization in order to adapt their communication strategy.

Objectives and Goals

To evaluate critically the benefits of destination branding and to gain a clear understanding of brand image and personality and their application to a tourism destination.

To identify destination brand image and personality of New Zealand as a holiday destination and to identify potential perceptual gap between the desired image of the destination and the current image among the potential consumers.

To analyze the marketing efforts of destination management organization of New Zealand and to make recommendations for future development of the destination brand of New Zealand.

Research questions

Dissertation structure

This dissertations contains five chapters. Every chapter is briefly introduced below.

Chapter 1. Introduction.

The first chapter introduces the topic giving a brief background to the problem. This is followed by a justification of the topic and the value of the research. The part of the dissertation will also reveal the objectives and the goals of the research. Finally it will provide the structure of the dissertation.

Chapter 2. Literature review.

The second chapter of the dissertation will provide a literature review on the researched topic. It will provide a critical discussion on the dissertation topic of destination image and destination personality based on previous studies.

Chapter 3. Methodology and methods.

This chapter is going to reveal the adopted research philosophy and the research methodology of the dissertation. Furthermore, this part of the research will explain and justify the applied research strategy used to research the discussed frameworks and models in Chapter 2.

Chapter 4. Findings, Analysis and Synthesis

Chapter 5 will provide the results of the conducted primary research. It is going to present the findings of the questionnaire and the data will be presented in suitable graphs, charts and tables in order to provide clear and effective analysis.

Chapter 5. Implications, Future Research and Conclusion

Chapter five is going to conclude the dissertation providing the possible opportunities for further research. This part if the study will also provide the limitations of the research.

The dissertation ends with a full list of the references used in this study and a list of the appendices.

Literature Review

This chapter is going to make an overview of previous researches relevant to brand image, brand personality and their application to tourism destination. The beginning of the chapter will provide a brief introduction to branding and will give definitions of the key terms. This will be followed by a review of process of destination image formation and its components. The final part of this literature review will examine brand personality dimensions and its application to tourism destinations.

Brand.

According to the American Marketing Association brand is a 'name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers'. Doyle (1993) gives a similar definition for a brand adding that the brand is a combination of the mentioned elements giving the branded product sustainable differential advantage. These definitions are more product orientated. However a brand is not only a name or a symbol that differs one product or service from others, it is all the different things that the consumer thinks and feels when he or she sees the company's symbol (Moilanen & Rainisto, 2009). A brand is a set of emotional (intangible) and functional (tangible) values that provide the consumer a unique opportunity for selection (Lynch & De Chernatony, 2004; Moilanen & Rainisto, 2009). Both Pride (2004) and Moilanen & Rainisto (2009) argue that brands represent a promise of value and prompt beliefs, evoke emotions and incite behaviors. With the change of the economic situation and the increasing fierce competition among the companies Kapferer (2012) points out that today the brands are not only in the products, nither in the people's minds and cannot be reduced simply to a benefit. However the author suggests that the brand has to create community due to the dominant role of internet and social media. To reflect all the recent changes in our society and economy and Kapferer (2012, p.12) defines the brand as 'a name that symbolizes a long-term engagement, crusade or commitment to a unique set of values, embedded into products, services and behaviours, which make the organization, person or product stand apart or stand out'.

Brand equity.

As the brand is making products, services and organizations to stand out from the rest, such advantage for every product or service contain value - brand equity. Brady, et al. (2008) explains that brand equity is a belief or perception that is much more than a mere familiarity but it extends to superiority that creates value for both consumers and the brand owner. Both Keller, et al. (2008) and Kapferer (2012) argue that brands create valuable assets in the hearts and minds of the cunsumers that have also financial value. Furthermore brands have to be considered as set of assets that may add to the value delivered by the service or a product or even they may also substract from this value (Aaaker, 2002). There is a general agreement among the authors that the brand equity consists of several major categories that increase the brand equity, such as brand loyalty, brand awareness, brand associations and percieved quality (Aaker, 2002; Salzer-Morling & Strannegard, 2004; Kapferer, 2012; Keller, et al., 2008).

However, destinations can also take advantage from this set of assets. Moilanen and Rainisto, (2009) point out that the key issue for decision makind for destination consumers is the perceived quality. In the case of destination marketing functional benefits do not have a significant role, while the major driver for satisfaction of the consumers is the perceived quality. Moreover destination brands are quite similar to corporate umbrella brands and is related to many diverse products - portfolio of investment, leisure and business tourism, and stakeholder welfare products which have various consumers (Moilanen & Rainisto, 2009; Balakrishnan, 2009).

Tourism destinations.

There is not widely accepted definition for a tourism destination and many authors give different definition or a different nuance. The World Tourist Organisation (WTO) defines tourism destination as 'the place visited that is central to the decision to take the trip'. This is supported by Metelka (1990) who define a destination as a geographical area to which a person is travelling such as a village, a town or a country. However such definitions are very general and could be applied to a wide variety of places ranging from a single attraction such as Disneyland to a country as Australia. Buhalis (2000) agrees with Davidson & Maitland (1997) acknowledging the complexity and multidimesionality of the tourism destinations. The authors argue that destinations offer amalgams of tourism products and services providing mulitidimensional experience to the consumers under the brand name of the destination. Moreover tourism destinations share a number of characteristics such as public authority, host community and other economic activities that may support or conflict with tourism activities (Davidson & Maitland, 1997). It appears that destinations are much more than a simple product or a service since in the destinations are engaged not only the visitors but also the local people, businesses and authorities.

Destination branding

Destination branding is a relatively new concept, in comparison to the traditional branding of products, that include elements of service, product and corporate branding (Balakrishnan, et al., 2011). The core purpose of destination branding is to build positive and favorable image of the destination that differentiates and identifies the destination by a consistent mix of brand elements (Qu, et al., 2011). However destination branding appears to be a more complex concept than the traditional branding of services and products. Pike (2005) argues that branding a destination is much more than simple articulation of a destination slogan but it is much more challenging and complex to manage for several reasons:

Mulitdimesionality of the destinations (Pike, 2005; Buhalis, 2000; Davidson & Maitland, 1997).

Huge variety of stakeholders with different and often conflicting interests (Pike, 2005; Morgan, et al., 2003).

Destination marketing is part of public sector and could be himdered by variety of political pressures (Pike, 2005; Morgan, et al., 2003).

Difficulty of application of consumer-based brand equity models in terms of brand loyalty (Pike,2005)

Incosistent and scarce funding (Pike, 2005; Morgan, et al., 2004)

On the other hand destination brands are also similar to product and services, built up of both symbolic (intangible) and fuctional (tangible) attributes (see Figure 1 below) (Balakrishnan, 2009).

A research conducted by the author shows that consumers prefer brands on the basis of their intangible qualities rather than functioanal properties. This is supported by Hosany, et al. (2007) who argue that the consumers' choice of a destination is highly influenced by the image of the destination. Moreover a favourable destination image and a distinctive brand personality can create a set of positive associations in consumer mind and may lead to stronger emotional ties to the destination brand (Hosany, et al., 2007).

Destination brand choice.

As already discussed, from marketing point of view destination brand represent a set of intangible (emotional) and tangible features communicated to the tourist though brand elements to facilitate brand choice. On the other hand from consumer's point of view the destination brand is a combination of perceptions linked to several destinations experiences sold under a specific brand name (Prayag, 2010). The process of destination choice is complex, structured and sequenced and is influenced by potential visitors' motives, attributes of the destination and personal characteristics (Prayag, 2010). Therefore, potential visitors' perceptions of the destination are affecting the process of destination choice and depending on these perceptions, potential visitors may include or exclude the destination from their consideration set. Tourist perceptions about the destination emerge from the image of the destination derived from induced and organic sources (Prayag, 2010; Jenkins, 1999). Induced image refers to promotional and marketing efforts through different communication channels, while the organic image is function of non-commercial sources such as actual visitation and word of mouth, and is much more difficult to control.

Destination image is important factor on determining tourist behavior in terms of intention to visit/revisit, preferences and decision making. However, destination image is only one of the factors influencing destination choice. Prayag (2010) argues that destination choice is complex for the consumer and suggest that there are three dominant factor - destination image, motives and consumers' own characteristics (age, income, occupation, household size). Given the topic of this study the next section will discuss in depth destination image

Destination Image

Nowadays tourists are offered huge variety of destinations claiming unique features and ultimate travel experience. Destination's offerings are quite comparable and therefore substitutable. As a result destinations are competing fiercely for more visitors. It is crucial for destinations to differentiate from the competitors and to create a memorable and positive image in the minds of the potential visitors (Sahin & Baloglu, 2011). Furthermore Balakrishnan, et al. (2011) add that brand image may create perceptual difference when differentiation between tourist destination is relatively low. Tourist destination images are important because they have huge influence on both the decision making behavior of the potential visitors and the levels of satisfaction regarding the visitors' experience (Jenkins, 1999).

Destination image concept is relatively well researched since the early 1970s and has a central role of the tourism research (Hosany, et al., 2006). Destination image is a valuable theory in terms of understanding the process of selection of holiday destination of the tourists (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a). There is a general agreement among the authors about the definition of the brand image. Brand image is generally defined as all the perceptions about a brand reflected by the brand associations held in the consumers' memory (Keller, et al., 2008; Hosany, et al., 2007; Qu, et al., 2011; Sahin & Baloglu, 2011). Adapting this definition to tourist destination image it appears that destination image is all the perceptions about the destination held in the memory of the potential and current visitors. All this associations towards the brand influence consumers' evaluation about the brand respectively the brand choice in terms of intentions to purchase or visit (Qu, et al., 2011). However Hosany, et al. (2006) gives a more precise definition explaining that destination image is an attitudinal concept comprising of the sum of impressions, ideas and beliefs that the tourist holds of a destination.

6.1 Destination Image Formation.

Jenkins (1999) based on Gunn's (1972) research suggests a multi stage theory of formation of destination image. This approach involves a continuous forming and modification of destination images (see Figure 8). The initial stage includes formation of organic image based mainly on non-tourist information about the destination such as books, news, documentaries and etc. The organic image is altered to induced image due the promotional and marketing efforts of the destination such as advertisements, brochures. The modified-induced image comes as a result of the personal experience of the visitor on site at the destination.

The suggested stage theory implies that the destination image held by non-visitors, potential visitors and returned visitors will be different. Baloglu & McCleary, (1999b) agree with Jenkins (1999) who argue that destination image varies between travellers who did not visited the destination and those who visited the destination. A research conducted by Baloglu & McCleary, (1999b) argue that travelers' images were modified after visiting a particular destination and significant differences existed between non visitors and visitors. Furthermore their study confirms that actual vistitation and experience is leading not only to change of the destination image but also the positioning of the destination based on cognitive, affective and overall attractiveness. In terms of the suggested theory of destination image formation a mismatch might be expected b

6.2. Components of Destination Image

Based on previous research Hosany, et al. (2006) agrees with Baloglu & McCleary, (1999a) who argue that destination image is a multidimensional construct that consist of two major dimensions - affective and cognitive (perceptual).

The cognitive dimension of the destination image refers to knowledge and beliefs about the physical, objective attributes of the destination (Sahin & Baloglu, 2011; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a; Hosany, et al., 2006; Qu, et al., 2011; Kim & Perdue, 2011). In terms of cognitive evaluation a tourist evaluates the destination in respect to objective features of the place. As a result the more informed tourist about the positive features of the destination is going to make a more trustworthy cognitive evaluation. However the affective stimulus that influences the destination image is related to the individuals' feelings towards the surrounding environments and attributes and the experiences provided there (Kim & Perdue, 2011; Beerli & Martin, 2004; Hosany, et al., 2007; Sahin & Baloglu, 2011). Consequently the more appealing and attractive attributes of the destinations to the tourist are leading to higher and better the affective evaluation (Sahin & Baloglu, 2011).

Both Beerli & Martin (2004) agrees with Baloglu & McCleary (1999a) who argue that there is general agreement that the cognitive component is anterior of the affective component. Furthermore, it is regarded that the affective component of the destination image is formed as a function of the antedecent perceptual one. As a result Baloglu & McCleary (1999a) suggest that although that there is a clear distinction between the two dimensions they also interrelated.

Due to the existence of such correlation between the affective and the cognitive dimension of the brand image some authors point out that the destinations are subject to overall evaluation of the tourists. According to Beerli & Martin (2004) the overall image is a result of the combination of the two major dimension of the destination image and it could be either positive or negative. The notion that the overall image is highly influenced by affective and cognitive evaluations is widely accepted (Qu, et al., 2011; Hosany, et al., 2007; Beerli & Martin, 2004). However, Sahin & Baloglu (2011) suggest that the overall and its dimensions can be different from each other and therefore should be measured separately gain better understanding for the relationships between them.

Figure 1 below represents a general model of formation of destination image based on previous literature and on the research of Baloglu & McCleary, (1999a) and Beerli & Martin, (2004). The model shows the two major forces that influence the formation of the destination image - personal and stimulus factors. The stumulus factors reveals external influences such as information sources that shape the evaluations and the perceptions of the tourists. On the other hand the personal factors reveal the indivudual beliefs about the characteristics of the destination based on exposure to external stimuli (Beerli & Martin, 2004). However, all these beliefs will be different according to the various internal factors of the consumer, such as sociodemographic characteristics and psychological nature (lifestyle, values, motivation, etc.). This model is valuable in terms of providing better knowledge of the factors and forces that determine the formation of the destination image, providing the components that have impact on tourism destination image (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a).

Although that the image compnents are hierarchally corelated to form the overall destination image Qu, et al. (2011) argues that both components - affective and cognitive have to be treated separately to examine their unique effects on tourists. This is supported by Sahin & Baloglu (2011) who point out that the overall image and each component should be measured separetely to understand the relationships between them. However, according to a research conducted by Hosany, et al. (2006) the majority of studies assess only the cognitive component of the destination image and some exceptions assess both dimensions of destination image. This is supported by Prebensen, (2007) who argue that this is not surprising as most buyin behavioral process start with getting knowledge about the place, product or service and gathering information. Though, the authors do not suggest or recommend which approach is more beneficial.

Brand Personality

Brand image and destination image are relatively well researched topics, while the concept of brand personality and more specifically its application to a tourism destination is relatively new and not widely researched topic. Aaker (1997, p.347) defines brand personality is a 'set of human characteristics associated with a brand'. Unique brand personality may create favorable and distinctive associations in consumer memory and therefore improve brand equity (Hosany, et al., 2007). Furthermore the authors argue that brand personality is important prerequisite for success of any brand, in terms of choice and preference that may lead to greater loyalty, trust and establishing emotional links between the consumer and the the brand. The application of this concept at more practical level means that brands' personality can be illustrated by descriptors such as extrovert, masculine, friendly, vibrant and etc. Moreover, Keller, et al. (2008) argue that consumers' choice of brands is very often consistent with their self-cocept, although this choice usually matches with consumer's desired self-image, rather than their actual image.

Due to the lack of common brand personality theory and consensual classification of personality traits to describe products Aaker (1997) developed theoretical Brand Personality Framework. The framework consists of five dimensions of the personality: Competence, Excitement, Sophistication, Sincerity and Ruggedness (see Figure 3 below). This framework was developed based on extensive study including 37 brands rated on 114 personality traits. Moreover the validity and reliability of the study was confirmed through a scaling procedure and test-retest. However, Murphy, et al. (2007) argues that Aaker's approach and definition is relatively broad and integrates human features that are in the scope of brand identity. But the authors point out that a general agreement exist that consumers perceive brands as having personalities and that there are five dimensions of brand personality - ruggedness, excitement, competence, sincerity and sophistication (Murphy, et al., 2007).

Although that the concept that brands may possess human characteristics is widely accepted by both practitioners and academics, the theoretical explanation of product personality is relatively undeveloped (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Hosany, et al., 2007). In order to be able to apply brand personality concept it is quite crucial to understand why people are endowing insentient objects such as brands with human characteristics. Ekinci & Hosany (2006) explains that it is quite common to encounter people who treat their laptop, computer or any other object as a family member or a friend. Such behaviour can be explained with the help of the anthropomorphism by the means of comfort and familiarity theories (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006). These theories suggest that the people are using themselves as models that help them to interpret the surrounding world. Furthermore the authors argues that people are not feeling comfortable with anything that is non-human and as a consequence people are anthropomorphising objects to facilitate interactions with non-material world. As a result the brands become active partners in consumer's mind and the brand choice becomes consistent with the consumer's self-image and more specifically for consumers who are sinsitive to how the others see them (Keller, et al., 2008).

Destination Personality

Ekinci & Hosany (2006) adopted Aaker's terminalogy of brand personality and defined destination personality as the set of human characteristics associated with a destination. The authors applied Aaker's brand persoality scale to measure destination personality and to assess whether the fourty-two brand personality variables are applicable to their description of tourism destinations. However Ekinci and Hosany (2006) found out that only twenty-seven of the orignal fourty-two traits are relevant to a tourism destination. Furthermore the results of the research showed that tourists ascribe personality characteristics to destinations and the brand personality scale is applicable to destinations. The findings of this study indicated not only the applicability of the brand personality scale to destinations but it also showed some limitations of the Aaker's framework when applied to destinations. Ekinci and Hosany (2006) argue that the brand personality scale cannot be fully applied to tourism destinations. It appears that tourist destinations can be described on only three dimensions: sincerity, excitement and conviviality (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006). It was found that the three dimensions are valid and reliable and the dimensions of excitement and sencerity were the two main factors (see Figure 4 below). Attributes such as dependable and trustworth characterise the sincerity dimension. However, this is not surprsing as the tourists are always concerned about their personal security and vulnerable and risky destinationations are always avoided. The next dimension, excitement encompass traits such as original, exciting, daring and spirited (Hosany, et al., 2006). This is provoked mainly due to core reasons of a tourist to undertake a trip, for leisure and relaxation purposes. The third destination personality dimension, conviviality is new to Aaker's brand personality scale and is specific to destinations. The new dimensions is consisting of the following traits - charming, family oriented and charming. Ekinci and Hosany (2006) argue that this result is consistent with some of the most common themes that destination marketer use to depict destinations.

For a destination it is important to be aware of the personality characteristics perceived by potential and current visitors because of the multiple benefits for the destination (Sahin & Baloglu, 2011). According to Ekinci and Hosany (2006) destinations that have stronger personalities have moderating effect on destination image. As presented in Figure 5 destination personality influences the impact of destination image on intention to recommend. As a result a positive and strong destination personality leverages the influence of destination image on intention to recommend, which in turn may increase the perception and satisfaction of potential and actual visitors and may lead to positive word of mouth (Sahin & Baloglu, 2011; Ekinci & Hosany, 2006).

Relationship between brand image and brand personality.

A general agreement exists that brand personality and brand image are the key factors for creating destination brand equity (Hosany, et al., 2006; Ekinci, 2003; Murphy, et al., 2007). However, it appears that definitional inconsistences exist and both terms of brand personality and brand image are used interchangeably (Ekinci, 2003). As a result Ekinci (2003) makes an attempt to shed a light on both concepts suggesting a model that explains the process of destination branding and the role of destination image and personality (Figure 6). The Ekinci's model suggests that the process of destination branding starts when the evaluation of destination image includes a strong emotional attachment. Thus only branded destinations are supposed to establish a strong emotional link with the potential consumers. Ekinci (2003) explains that the success of the destination branding involves creation of a relationship between tourists and destination by satisfying their basic and emotional needs. In order to establish this link between tourists' self-image and destination branding, an important determining factor is the brand personality that emphasizes the human side of the brand image. The presented model proposes an existing relationship between tourist's self-image and destination personality.

Further research in that area lead to additional development of Ekinci's model and linked the tourists' behavioral intentions to brand image and brand personality. Hosany & Ekinci (2003, cited by Murphy, et al., 2007) argue that the overall destination image consists of the cognitive and affective features of the destination and its personality characteristics. Moreover, this is supported by Beerli & Martin (2004) and (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a) who argue that the overall destination image is influenced by the cognitive and affective image of the destination. Accordingly the affective image is influence by the cognitive image and by personality characteristics of the tourism destination. However brand personality is directly linked to both affective image and to overall destination image (Figure 7). Thus, this connection clearly reveals the significance of congruence between the brand personality of the destination and the self-image of the consumer (Murphy, et al., 2007). All these components influence the overall destination image which in turn creates the overall attitude to the destination. The suggested model shows that the overall image of the destination is closely related to the consumer's satisfaction and to their behavioral intentions. Thus, it appears that destination personality and destination image are related concepts. It seems that brand image is encompassing concept and destination personality is more related to the affective element of the destination image (Ekinci, 2003; Hosany, et al., 2006; Murphy, et al., 2007). Furthermore the presented framework for destination branding show that destination personality and destination image are not only related concepts, moreover they are causing indirect influence on consumers' behavioral intentions.

3. Research Methodology and Method

3.1. Introduction

This part of the research is going to focus on the research philosophy and the research methodology of the study. Furthermore this chapter is going to clarify the applied research strategy used to investigate the discussed models, frameworks and theories in the previous chapter. The research will focus mainly on brand image and personality and their application to a tourism destination.

3.2. Objective of research

According to the aims and objectives of this study a specific set of relevant objectives are set to collect the needed information:

Gain knowledge about the consumer's perceptions of destination image of New Zealand (Objective 1)

Gain knowledge about the consumer's perceptions of destination personality of New Zealand (Objective 2)

The previous chapter made a review of current models and frameworks related to destination image and destination personality developed and used by other authors.

3.3. Research Philosophy - Positivism

At the very basic level research refers to a step-by-step process of investigation of a subject that includes collection of data, examination and analysis of the collected information (Matthews & Ross, 2010). The research is taken to answer the specific questions and objectives set by this study in a systematic, purposeful and structured manner.

In order to introduce the research philosophy of this study the term of epistemology has to be clarified. The epistemology is a theory about the knowledge, about what can be known and what criteria must satisfy in order to be called knowledge rather than beliefs (Matthews & Ross, 2010). According to the authors there are three different epistemological positions - realism, interpretivism and positivism.

The position of positivism adopt the philosophical attitude of the natural scientist, that prefer to deal with the observable social reality that the result of such research is going to be a law-like generalizations similar to those produced by the natural and physical scientists (Saunders, et al., 2007). Saunders, et al (2007) agree with Denscombe (2010) who argues that positivist approach is mainly based on the assumption that there are regularities, causes and patterns in the social world, just as there are in the natural world. In general Mcneil & Chapman (2005) argues that positivism see the societty as more important factor that the individual, in other words the individual behaviour is less important for our understanding of the social life than the social structure of society. Another crucial characteristics of postitivism demands a belief that only observable phenomena in the sense of being amenable to the senses could be warranted as knowledge, consequently a phenomena that cannot be observed has no place(Bryman, 2000). Saunders, et al(2007) advocate that positivist researcher will be more likely to use a methodology that is highly structured in order to facilitate replication. Furthermore the authors argue that the accent would be in quantifiable observations that is going to lead to statistical anaysis. This approach will allow the researcher to avoid any 'feelings'that are usually involved in a personal interview and in the process of interpreting the responses. Consequently the positivist's aproach suggests that the researcher is neutral and should not allow their political or personal prejudices and opionions to bias any aspect or part of the research method or the interpretation of the collected data (Mcneil & Chapman, 2005). Furthermore the authors argue that the the positivist approach reagard research methods producing quantitative data as more reliable than any other methods because they are usually organised in systematic and standardised ways such as logical structure of questions including tick boxes. Such method can be easily replicated by any other researcher in order to check and verify the accuracy of the research.

The positivist approach believes that the causes of the human behavior lie outside of the individual person and the researchers are likely to adopt a macro approach to the study of the society. Therefore there is no point in engaging qualitative methods that attempt to see the world through the eyes of individuals such as unstructured interviews and focus groups. Consequently for this particular study positivism approach will be adopter as quantitative data is going to be collected to investigate consumers' perceptions towards the brand image and personality of the tourism destination of New Zealand.

3.4 Research Methodology - Deductive

According to Crowther & Lancaster (2008) there are two equally important and qually contrasting approaches to the research method regarding to the knowledge building and the theory of methodology. These two cotnrasting approaches are deductive and inductive research methods. The deductive approach develops hypotheses or theories and after that check out these hypotheses with the help of emperical observation. In other words the deductive approach derives hypothesis from prior theoretical schemes (Bryman, 2000). Basically the process of the deductive research includes several key steps prsented in Figure 8. As shown on the diagram the deductive approach set out a hypothesis that is based in an existing theory as the first step if the process of deduction (Matthews & Ross, 2010; Crowther & Lancaster 2008). The next stage of is the process is the operationalization where the hypotheses are defined in away that can be measured through emperical observation, which is followed by the test. The final stage of the process includes the decision whether the hypothesis can be rejected or confirmed.

On the other hand the inductive approach reverses the research process of the deductive research, it starts with the research question and then the data is collected and the explanations are derived directly from the data itself. The contrasting processes of induction and deduction are shown in Figure 10. The induction approach does not involve establishment of hypothesis or theories in advance (Crowther & Lancaster, 2008). Furthermore, this approach allows the researcher to create theories based on observations and gives more flexibility in research design. The inductive approach is mainly collecting qualitative data.

Both approaches have some drawbacks in terms of validity and reliability. For instance the measurement might be problematical for the deductive approach, while the inductive research may face problems in terms of gaining full access to the knowledge and meanings of informants (Crowther & Lancaster, 2008). However, there is no approach that is fully reliable, valid and has no disadvantages.

This research is going to adopt deductive approach as most appropriate for several reasons. Firstly, quantitative data is going to be collected to measure consumers' perceptions towards destination image and personality of the tourism destination of New Zealand. Secondly, hypotheses will not be produced because the study's objectives will be the researchable topic for analysis.

3.5. Data Collection Methods

3.5.1. Secondary Research

Mcneil & Chapman (2005) argues that it is very common for a researcher to use data from previous studies as a basis for the new work. Mcneil & Chapman (2005) agree with Matthews & Ross (2010) who define secondary research as data which has already been produced by others for purposes different from the researcher's particular purposes of the project. Consequently secondary data includes information that is already collected and is ready to be used by the researcher for the particular aims of the study. Secondary data includes various sources of information such as public records, organisational data, archives, journals, books, publications. Using secondary data might be regarder as a cheap, accessble source of information. Furthermore, using public records and officcial statistics are providing large samples. On the other hand using secondary data has some disadvantages it might be out dated or might be biased by the context in which the data is produced.

This study has already adopted secondary research. The previous chapter has made a critical discussion of the current literature in terms of relevant theories, models and frameworks regarding brand image and personality and their application to a tourism destination. The used sources of secondary data were journal papers, text books and credible internet sites.

3.5.2. Primary Research

Matthews & Ross (2010) define primary data as the data that a researcher collects specifically for their own research. In other words the primary data is first-hand data gathered by the researcher through the research methods such as interviews, surveys or participant observations. The data is collected for the first time meeting the specific objectives of the research. This could be regarded as the main advantage of the primary data. However, the collection of primary data usually is quite expensive and time consuming procedure and is not always feasible (Denscombe, 2010).

Bryman (2000) argues that there are two types of primary data - quantitative and qualitative. The author aknowledges the survey as the main vehicle of the quantitative research on large amount of people, known to be representative of a wider population in order to test hypotheses or theories. By contrast the qualitative approach does not seek for representativeness but attemp to provide ideas and insights on the researched topic through semi-structured or unstructered interview or focus group (Bryman, 2000).

3.6. Research Strategy - Questionnaire

The method chosen for this research is a questionnaire, which will allow quantitative data to be gathered. Saunders, et al. (2007) define questionnaire as a data collection technique in which each participant is is asked to answer one and the same set of questions in a pre-determined order. The use of a questionnaire is one of the most common data collection method, because each respondent is asked to answer the same set of questions and it provides an efficient technique of gathering answers from a vast sample. Furthermore, this research strategy is suitable for this study because standardised questions are going to be used that will make us confident that all the respondents are going to interpret them the same way (Saunders, et al., 2007).

3.7. Questionnaire design

In order to achieve the set objectives of this study, the questionnaire has questions in three main sections. Section 1 - Destination Image will give answers to the first objective and Section 2 will provide information for the second one. The last Section will five demographic information about the respondents. The questions are designed to cover areas of interest closely related the research objectives of this study.

3.7.1 Flow of the Questionnaire.

In the design of the questionnaire, the respondent is asked for some demographic details at the beginning. The benefit of this decision is that the respondent is asked to start with some easier questions to gain trust in the survey. Mangione (1995) argues that the questionnaire should not be started with the most important and hardest questions. The questionnaire is designed from the perspective of difficulty starting with easier questions that will establish a context for the rest of the questionnaire (Bourque and Fielder,1995). However, the majorities of the demographic questions are moved to the end of the questionnaire as they are easier to answer and could be answered even if the respondent is tired of the rest of the questions.

The questions are grouped into subtopics to help the respondents keep a frame of reference as they answer the questions (Mangione, 1995). Within each major section the questions are ordered in a way that has logical sense that will facilitate the respondent.

3.7.2 Question Types.

The questionnaire is designed so that it consists of closed questions with a quite limited opportunity for the respondents to add comments. Closed questions have been selected because of the relatively large number of respondents that are targeted and because quantitative analysis is anticipated. On the other hand Mangione (1995) argues that open-ended questions do not work well in self-administrated questionnaires as many of the respondents leave them blank. Another reason that open-ended questions were not widely used is because that they are more difficult to answer, code and analyze (Bourque and Fielder,1995).

In the questionnaire Multiple-choice questions are also used so this allows the respondent to select one or several options. All the multiple answer questions attempt to incorporate exhaustive list of categories and all the categories are mutually exclusive. Bourque and Fielder (1995) maintain that in such self-administered mail questionnaires reducing the questions with such problems will lead to increased response rate.

In the questionnaire are used also rating scales and its particular subset the Likert scale. The used Likert scales in the questionnaire are Bipolar and the 'distance' between each pair of points is chosen to be equal avoiding huge gaps in the scale or two adjacent points (Mangione, 1995). Provided scales are balanced with equal number of positive and negative response. This decision aims to avoid loaded questions that will force respondents into being positive or negative. (Robson, Pemberton and Mcgrane, 2011).

3.7.3 Online questionnaire

Self-administrated online questionnaire was chosen for this study for several reasons. Electronic questionnaire offers some advantages in comparison to postal questionnaires as avoiding problems of questions skips (the program automatically moves to the next relevant question), the program can alert the respondents for mistakes (for example, if they tick more than one box where only one is required) ( Aldridge and Levine, 2001). Also using electronic questionnaire avoids the problem of arranging the distribution and return. Furthermore the use of electronic questionnaire will allow faster distribution among the respondents at lower price and will avoid need of interviewers. This method is much more faster and in the context of this research is more appropriate than any other method.

3.8 Practical details

A sample of 92 tourists filled in the online questionnaire. The major disadvantage of the mailed surveys is their tendency to provide low response rates unless the respondents have strong reasons to participate (Balakrishnan et al,1992; Aldridge and Levine, 2001). The relatively small response rate and the small sample size could be due to the lack of an incentive. Balakrishnan et al (1992) claim that using of lottery prize giveaway may increase response rate significantly. Weisberg (2005) claims that giving the respondent an incentive to participate in the survey may be regarded as a kindness that evokes norm of reciprocity to help the organization offering the benefit. Consequently it appears the use of incentive has a positive impact on the chance of improving the response rate. However in the context of this study no incentive was provided and the response rate was relatively low.

The survey results were analysed with SPSS. The instrument of the survey included one open ended question and quantitative questions to get the consumers' perceptions of New Zealand.

The used brand personality traits were borrowed from Aaker (1997) and were modified according to performed research and according to the findings of Hosany et al. (2006). In total 15 brand personality traits were used to measure brand personality on a five-point Likert scale form 'Totally not descriptive to 'Totally descriptive'. Respondents were given the option to tick a box 'Not clear' if they do not understand the suggested trait.

Cognitive images of the brand image were measured by a five-point scale where 1 means 'Offers very little and 5 means 'Offers very much'. The used rating scale was borrowed from Jenkins (1999) who used 40 attributes to rate cognitive brand image perceptions. For the purpose of this study Jenkins' (1999) scale was modified according and a set of 18 relevant attributes were used.

The cognitive perceptions measured by a seven - point bipolar scales: unpleasant - pleasant, distressing - relaxing, gloomy - exciting, sleepy - arousing, overcrowded - sparse, stagnant - lively, isolated - easily accessible. The used scale is a modified version of Baloglu and McCleary (1999).

The overall destination image of New Zealand was measured by a seven - point scale where one is very negative and seven is very positive.

3.9. Pilot testing

A pilot test of the questionnaire was conducted before the questionnaire was distributed. The pilot survey aimed to test all key aspects of the survey, such as specific set of questions we may consider as problematic and its effectiveness (Bryman, 2001). The pilot testing was found to be crucial part of this stage of the research because it helped to discover some problems in the design and the structure of the questionnaire.

The pilot testing tested the language and the wording of the questions, in terms of the instructions. This aspect of the piloting did not find any major issues. Other aspects of the questionnaire that were tested were the flow of the questionnaire and the timing. It was found the questionnaire is too long and some of the respondents did not finish all the questions. Another issue was the flow of the questionnaire, initially all the demographic questions were in the beginning. Due to the findings of the pilot testing the flow of the questionnaire was changed and the length of some of the questions. These changes were applied because longer questionnaires may inhibit the respondents to complete the questionnaire entirely.

3.10. Ethical Issues.

There are no ethical issues to be acknowledged that may inhibit this study. All the respondents were guaranteed anonymity and no personal information was required such as names or e-mail addresses. Therefore there were not concerns regarding participants' privacy. All the participants were informed about the purpose of the study and were provided with contact information in case they need some more information about the research or in case they are interested in the results. Furthermore for some of the questions the respondents were given the opportunity to skip question by marking an answer 'Prefer not to answer' if they do not feel comfortable to share some personal information.

3.9 Limitation and bias.

3.10 Limitations of research

3.11. Summary of chapter

This chapter aimed to present the research philosophy and the research methodology of the study. The philosophy of the research focused on the positivist approach as more relevant in the context of this study. For the purpose of the research qualitative data was chosen to be gathered with the help of a questionnaire. The questionnaire included open and closed ended questions. A pilot testing of the questionnaire was performed to identify any possible problems and weaknesses. After the questionnaire was corrected according the findings of the questionnaire it was distributed online.

This chapter also reveals all the practical detail related to the study and also gives information about any ethical issues that may inhibit the study.

The findings of the distributed questionnaire will be presented in the next chapter.

4. Findings, Analysis and Synthesis

4.1. Introduction

The focus of this study is the consumers' perceptions of destination image and personality of a tourism destination - New Zealand. The previous chapter provided justification of the adopted method in this study. This part of the project will give the results collected from the questionnaire that will be followed by an analysis of the findings.

4.2. Findings

Table 1 below presents the demographic profile of the respondents. The presented breakdown of the respondents is not grouped into segments of visitors and non-visitors because a significant difference between them was not found.

4.2.1. Demographic Profile.

Respondents are not equally distributed by gender. Out of the 98 respondents 61% are female and are 39% male. Most of the respondents belong to the younger age group with 50% within the group of 18-28 years and 28% within the group of 29-39 years. Only about 20% of the respondents fall in the older age group. The majority of the respondents are single (64%) and well educated. The respondents are not evenly distributed in terms of visitation of the destination. Only about 30% of the respondents declare that have visited the studied destination. The uneven distribution in terms of gender, age and visitation status could be due to the applied distribution method of the questionnaire. It was distributed over the internet.

4.2.2. Image differences between the segments of visitors and non-visitors.

The t-tests were performed in order to detect significant differences in the studied destination image attributes collected with the questionnaire. The t-test attempted to identify significant differences between the different demographic groups in terms of educational level, gender and age. The Levine's test was applied in addition to test homogeneity of the variances.

The results of the conducted t-tests showed that there are no significant differences in the image perceptions between the different age groups, gender and the educational level of the respondents for all the researched image attributes.

However the results from the t-tests revealed that there are some significant differences (p < 0.05) between visitors and non-visitors on eight of eighteen cognitive attributes and on three of seven affective attributes. The results of the t-tests and the mean values of the image attributes of visitors and non-visitors are presented in Table 2 below.

Cognitive attributes.

According to the results both visitors and non-visitors rate some cognitive attributes with relatively low values. The majority of the respondents perceive that the explored destination do not offer 'Good value for money' as the mean value for this item is about 3.4 out of 5.

Similar results are registered in four other cognitive attributes. Both segments of visitors and non-visitors gave relatively low values for the following cognitive attributes - Appealing local food (Cuisine), Good nightlife and entertainment, Good availability to practice winter sports and Interesting historical attractions/Museums (see Table 2).

By contrast the destination was rated significantly higher than the rest of the measured attributes by the both segments of visitors and non-visitors on two items. The two perceptual attributes that receive comparatively high values by both segments are Beautiful scenery/Natural attractions and Tourist sites/Activities rated with about 4.7 and 4.3 respectively.

Significant differences were found between non-visitors and visitors on eight out of the 18 cognitive attributes at 5% significance level. According to the results it is important to note that respondents that have visited the destination tend to have more favorable and positive attitude than the non-visitors (see Table 2). The results showed that visitors have significantly better perception than non-visitors towards the following cognitive items: Good climate for a holiday, Interesting cultural attractions, Suitable accommodation facilities, Good availability to practice winter sports and extreme sports, Personal safety, Unpolluted environment and Standard hygiene and cleanliness.

Affective attributes and Overall impression on destination image.

The results revealed that both segments perceive the tourist destination of New Zealand as a relatively isolated destination rather than easily accessible (mean value ~3.65). No significant difference was discovered for the following three pairs of affective attributes: Unpleasant - Pleasant, Sleepy - Arousing and Stagnant - Lively. These affective pairs are rated with comparatively high mean values.

On the other hand a comparison of the mean values of the other three items revealed that a significant difference exists between visitors and non-visitors on the following three affective pairs - Distressing - Relaxing, Gloomy - Exciting, Overcrowded - Sparse. The respondents that have visited the destination have given higher rates on the affective items Relaxing, Sparse and Exciting, than the non-visitors.

The average score of the overall image of the destination revealed that there is no significant difference between non-visitors and visitors. Both segments of consumers tend to have very positive perception towards the overall impression of the destination with a mean value of about 6 out of 7.

4.2.3. Personality Traits

The respondents were asked to describe the tourism destination of New Zealand as a person in five words. The most common answers are presented as a mental map in figure 11 below grouped in five categories - Image, Brand Feeling, Negative Performance and People. The most chosen traits used to describe the destination are friendly, beautiful, adventurous/exotic and exciting/mysterious. Another traits widely used by the respondents to depict destination are natural/green and healthy, athletic, energetic. However, some of the respondents characterized the destination with quite negative traits as being dangerous/dark, distant and alone.

The results are not surprising showing the most common associations with the destination image of New Zealand. The remoteness of the destination creates the feeling in the respondents for an exciting place offering adventurous and mysterious experience. On the other hand quite a lot of the respondents see the destination as friendly, comforting and relaxing. The majority of the respondents depicted the destination with quite favorable traits. However, the destination image of New Zealand has provoked some negative associations in small amount of the respondents. They depicted it as a dangerous, distant and alone. Such associations as alone and distant could be also provoked due to the fact that New Zealand is one of the outermost tourism destinations.

4.2.4. Brand Personality Scale

Aaker's (1997) Brand Personality Scale consisting of forty-one personality traits was modified according to the findings of Ekinci and Hosany (2006). It was reduced to 15 personality traits in three groups for the purpose of this study according to the Dimensions of destination personality model of Ekinci and Hosany (2006). The respondents were asked to rate the destination according to the chosen 15 personality traits from one to five (1 = extremely not descriptive, 2 = not descriptive, 3 = neutral, 4 = descriptive, 5 = extremely descriptive). A higher number assigned to a personality trait indicates it as a more representative and descriptive to the destination. The respondents were provided the option to mark any of the traits with 'Not clear'. The majority of the respondents rated all the personality traits (about 90%). Only the items 'Successful' (11, 25%) and 'Wholesome' (14, 25%) were found to be quite unclear for the respondents. The results from the questionnaire are presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3.

 

 

Brand personality traits (N = 98)

Traits

Mean value

% Not clear

Reliable

3,96

8,16%

Sincere

4,09

10,00%

Intelligent

3,88

8,16%

Successful

4,06

11,25%

Wholesome

3,86

14,29%

Exciting

4,43

5,10%

Daring

3,96

9,18%

Original

4,38

5,10%

Spirited

4,25

<