DESTINATION BRANDING CASE

STUDY: TRACKING BRAND EQUITY

FOR AN EMERGING DESTINATION
BETWEEN 2003 AND 2007
Steven Pike
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Place branding has become a major focus of operations for destination marketing orga-
nizations (DMOs) striving for differentiation in cluttered markets. The topic of destina-
tion branding has only received attention in the tourism literature since the late 1990s,
and there has been relatively little research reported in relation to analyzing destination
brand effectiveness over time. This article reports an attempt to operationalize the con-
cept of consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) for an emerging destination over two
points in time. The purpose of the project was to track the effectiveness of the brand in
2007 against benchmarks that were established in a 2003 study at the commencement
of a new destination brand campaign. The key finding was there was no change in per-
ceived performance for the destination across the brand’s performance indicators and
CBBE dimensions. Because of the common challenges faced by DMOs worldwide, it is
suggested the CBBE hierarchy provides destination marketers with a practical tool for
evaluating brand performance over time.

KEYWORDS:  destination branding; consumer-based brand equity; destination image

The topic of branding first appeared in the marketing literature more than
50 years ago (see Banks, 1950; Gardner & Levy, 1955). However, published
research relating to destination branding did not emerge until the late 1990s.
Ritchie and Ritchie (1998) bemoaned this dearth of research in their conceptual
paper around the same time as the first destination branding journal articles by
Pritchard and Morgan (1998) and Dosen, Vranesevic, and Prebezac (1998). In
the decade since these first papers appeared, the field has attracted increasing
interest. The first book on the topic appeared in 2002 (see Morgan, Pritchard, &
Pride, 2002), case studies of destination brand development have appeared (see,
e.g., Crockett & Wood, 1999; Curtis, 2001; Hall, 1999; Morgan, Pritchard, &
Pride, 2002; Pride, 2002; Slater, 2002), and the first academic conference dedi-
cated to the topic, held at Macau’s Instituto De Formacao Turistica (IFT), took
place in 2005 (see Dioko & So, 2005).
Despite recent attention, there is at least one area in which the destination
branding literature remains significantly underreported. Although the published

Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 34, No. 1, February 2010, 124-139
DOI: 10.1177/1096348009349820
© 2010 International Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education
124
 Pike / DESTINATION BRANDING CASE STUDY   125

case studies now provide a destination brand development resource for destina-
tion marketing organizations (DMOs) and academics, there has been little
reported on the performance of destination brands over time. However, it should
be noted that the topic of brand metrics is also rare in the services marketing
literature (Kim, Kim, & An, 2003). Given the resources now being invested in
destination brand initiatives globally there is a need for more research related to
destination brand performance.
Brand equity is the most common term used to represent brand performance,
and is measured in terms of a financial value on the corporate balance sheet.
However, such intangible asset values are of little practical value to DMOs,
albeit with the exception of potential licensing revenue. One alternative worthy
of investigation by DMOs in brand effectiveness measurement is consumer-
based brand equity (CBBE) promoted by Aaker (1991, 1996) and Keller (1993,
2003). CBBE measurement is based on the premise of developing an under-
standing of how marketing initiatives are impacting on consumer learning and
recall of brand information.
During 2003, research was undertaken to measure CBBE for an emerging
Queensland destination at the time of a new brand launch. Aspects of this
research have been reported previously (reference withheld). The aim of the
2003 study was to provide benchmarks, against which the effectiveness of the
brand could be monitored over time. The purpose of this article is to report the
results of a repeat study undertaken in 2007, to enable a comparison of CBBE
at two points in time over 4 years of the brand’s life.
In Queensland, 13 tourism regions are officially recognized and supported by
the state tourism organization (STO), Tourism Queensland (see http://www
.queenslandholidays.com.au/destinations/index.cfm). The STO provides sub-
stantial financial and human resources to the regional tourism organizations
(RTOs), much of which has been invested in the development of destination
brands. In the past few years, most RTOs have developed new brand position-
ing themes for use in Brisbane, the state capital. Brisbane is the most important
market in terms of visitor arrivals for most destinations in Queensland and north-
ern New South Wales. The destination of interest in this study is Bundaberg,
Coral Coast and Country, which has been categorized by Tourism Queensland as
an “emerging destination.” The foundation of a brand is its name (Keller, 2003),
and the destination brand name introduced in 2003 by Bundaberg Region Ltd,
the RTO, was “Bundaberg, Coral Isles and Country,” which recognized the
geographic diversity of a region covering 26,000 square kilometers and 11 shire
councils. The name was later changed to Bundaberg, Coral Coast and Country.
Located 350 kilometers north of Brisbane, the region encompasses a large rural
hinterland, for which Bundaberg (population 45,000) is the largest city, and a
lengthy coastline that boasts the southern starting point of the Great Barrier Reef.
The travel situation of interest in the study is short break holidays by car.
Following White (2000) a short break is defined as a nonbusiness trip of between
one and four nights away from home. Although short breaks have emerged as
one of the fastest growing travel segments in many parts of the world (see, e.g.,
126   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Vanhove, 2005), there has been little research reported in Australia. This is
despite Mackay’s (1988) analysis of Australians’ attitudes toward travel, which
identified “mini breaks” as one of seven major opportunities for tourism mar-
keters. Domestic short break drive tourism is an important aspect of Australian
travel patterns. The Bureau of Travel Research (BTR, 2002) estimated 76% of
domestic travel is undertaken by car, 70% of which is travel within the state of
residence. The mean length of stay for these trips was estimated at three nights.
BTR estimated short breaks of one to three nights represented 68% of the
Queensland drive market, whereas short tours of four to seven nights repre-
sented a further 19%. Australian domestic travel growth has stagnated in recent
years, which has been attributed to a trend toward longer working hours and
increasing competition for leisure time (Tourism Forecasting Council, 2000,
2001). Tourism Forecasting Council forecast total domestic visitor nights to
increase by 0.3% annually until 2012. However, the past and forecast growth
rate of short breaks is less clear within published aggregated data associated
with domestic tourism in Queensland.
During 2002, Tourism Queensland undertook a series of focus groups with
Brisbane consumers to investigate perceptions of Bundaberg, Coral Coast and
Country. The study found that although the name Bundaberg had strong name
recognition in the Brisbane market as the home of Bundaberg Rum and
Bundaberg Ginger Ale, the region lacked a clear identity as a tourism destina-
tion. While there were positive perceptions held by older people and families
who had recently visited the region, the results highlighted three possible barri-
ers to increased visitation from Brisbane residents. These were (a) the perception
there was “nothing to do,” (b) the driving distance, and (c) a lack of nightlife,
restaurants, cafes, and shopping. To address these issues, a new destination
brand, at a cost of $20,000 was developed by the RTO and STO over 12 months
(Still, 2002). The new brand was launched by the RTO in early 2003 with the
objectives being (a) to raise awareness of the destination; (b) to stimulate
increased interest in, and visitation to the region; and (c) educate the market
about things to do. The new brand positioning theme was “Take time to Discover
Bundaberg, Coral Isles and Country.” The brand was launched to industry stake-
holders in a series of meetings, where local businesses were enticed with finan-
cial incentives, in the form of discounted advertising rates, to use the new brand
theme. Subregional variations of the brand theme were developed to encourage
participation by towns and communities within the region. The brand promise
was that visitors’ expectations would be exceeded. The brand identity attributes
were laid-back, friendly and warm, relaxed, natural, coastal and country sense
of freedom, choice, and flexibility.
At the time of the brand launch in 2003, research was undertaken to provide
structured data that the RTO could use to monitor the effectiveness of the brand
campaign over time, relative to the objectives (Pike, 2006). It was felt that
CBBE could be adapted to suit this aim. In terms of benchmarking the destina-
tion’s position as a short break destination in the Brisbane market, the study
concluded the Bundaberg region had a low level of brand equity in its most
 Pike / DESTINATION BRANDING CASE STUDY   127

Figure 1
Brand Identity, Brand Position, and Brand Image

Brand identity
Brand
Desired brand positioning Brand image
image
Name Actual image
Symbol held by
Vision consumers
Values Slogan
Personality

Source: Pike (2004, p. 112).

important geographic market. The 2003 results can be used to track the perfor-
mance of the brand, in relation to the original objectives, over time. To this end,
the purpose of this article is to report a 2007 study to use the CBBE hierarchy
to analyze the extent to which the objectives had been achieved in the 4 years
since the brand launch.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Most definitions of a brand have been based on that proposed by Aaker (1991)

A distinguishing name and/or symbol (such as a logo, trademark, or package

design) intended to identify the goods or services of either one seller or a group of
sellers, and to differentiate those goods from those of competitors. (p. 7)

A brand is, however, more than the presentation of such symbols in con-
sumer promotions. Aaker proposed a brand be viewed from both the supply and
demand perspectives. One way to do this is through understanding of the dis-
tinction between the concepts of brand identity and brand image. The former is
the self-image desired by the marketers, whereas the latter is the actual image
held by consumers. As shown in Figure 1, brand positioning elements, such as the
name, symbol, and slogan, are used by the marketer to cut through the noise of
competing and substitute products to stimulate an induced destination image
that matches the brand identity (see Pike, 2004, p. 112). Brand performance
measurement with the analysis of the level of congruence of brand image and
brand identity. This in effect provides a measure of brand equity.
Aaker (1991) defined brand equity as assets and liabilities that add or detract
value to a firm and/or its companies. High levels of brand equity can result in
128   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Figure 2
Consumer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) for a Destination

Hierarchy of effects RTO objectives CBBE components Measures

• Repeat visitation
RTO Objective 2: to Brand loyalty • Word of mouth
- Purchase
stimulate increased recommendation
- Preference
interest in, and
visitation to the • Previous visitation
Brand resonance
destination • Intent to visit

RTO Objective 3: to
- Knowledge education the
- Liking market about things Brand • Cognition
to do associations • Affect

- Awareness RTO Objective 1: to • ToMA

Brand salience
raise awareness of • Decision set
the destination

Source: Adapted from Pike (2007).

increased sales, price premiums, customer loyalty, (Aaker, 1991), lower costs
(Keller, 1993), and purchase intent (Cobb-Walgren, Beal, & Donthu, 1995).
Commonly, measurement of brand equity is by way of an intangible balance sheet
asset net-present-value, with key dependent variables, including future financial
performance (see Kim et al., 2003) and market share (see Mackay, 2001).
Underpinning CBBE is the proposition that indicators of market attitudes
and behavior toward a brand underpin any financial valuation of brand equity.
In this way CBBE can be viewed as both a measurement of the effectiveness of
past marketing communication, and a predictor of future performance. The
CBBE hierarchy appears relevant to DMO stakeholders, for which the financial
measure of a destination brand would be of little practical value to DMOs.
Following the work of Aaker (1991, 1996) and Keller (1993, 2003), as well as
Lavidge and Steiner’s (1961) hierarchy of effects, CBBE for a destination is
conceptualized as a hierarchy of brand salience, brand associations, brand reso-
nance, and brand loyalty. Figure 2 illustrates these concepts in relation to the
RTO’s three 2003 brand objectives.
Brand salience is the foundation of the hierarchy and represents the strength
of the destination’s presence in the mind of the target for a given travel situa-
tion. It is suggested salience is best operationalized though unaided top of mind
awareness (ToMA), rather than through recall by prompting. The proposition
that ToMA is an indicator of purchase preference (see Axelrod, 1968; Wilson,
1981; Woodside & Wilson, 1985), was supported in the 2003 study (Pike,
2006). Of particular interest to destination marketers is in understanding how
travelers select a holiday destination from so many places offering the same
 Pike / DESTINATION BRANDING CASE STUDY   129

benefits. The theory of consumer decision sets offers, introduced by Howard

(1963) and Howard and Sheth (1969), is helpful in this regard. Many tourism
studies have supported the assertion that the number of destinations a traveler
will actually consider in the purchase process is limited to four plus or minus
two (see, e.g., Crompton, 1992; Thompson & Cooper, 1979). These destinations
form the decision set, which provides a measure of brand salience relative to
competitors. This CBBE dimension relates to the destination’s first brand objec-
tive: To increase awareness of the destination. Brand associations are anything
linked in memory to the destination. Mayo and Jarvis (1981) suggested destina-
tion attractiveness is a function of the specific benefits sought by travelers and
the ability of the destination to provide them. From this perspective it is
important to gain an understanding of what decision criteria will be used by the
consumer-traveler when making differentiating destinations under consider-
ation. Reviews of the extensive destination image literature (see Chon, 1990;
Echtner & Ritchie, 1991; Gallarza, Saura, & Garcia, 2002; Pike, 2002, 2007;
Tasci, Gartner, & Cavusgil, 2007) indicate there is no commonly agreed con-
ceptualization of the construct. Not surprisingly therefore, no accepted destina-
tion image scale has been developed. Kotler, Haider, and Rein (1993) highlighted
the way in which minds simplify the process of destination image formation:
“Images represent a simplification of a large number of associations and pieces
of information connected with the place. They are the product of the mind try-
ing to process and essentialize huge amounts of data about a place” (p. 141).
Mayo and Jarvis proposed an individual would make a brand selection based on
what is “important and relevant to them” (p. 68), and so associations need to be
measured in terms of attributes deemed determinant for a given travel situation.
That is, the researcher needs to elicit from the respondent, from a selection of
salient attributes, those that determine destination selection for a given travel
situation. Although most popular measurement approach is structured surveys
using scales of cognitive attributes and affective benefits, the issue of travel
situation salience and determinance has been neglected in the destination image
literature. This CBBE dimension relates to the destination’s third objective: to
educate the market about things to do. Brand resonance represents willingness
to engage with the brand, or level of identification a consumer has with a brand.
It is suggested that for destinations, resonance can be measured behaviorally,
such as in previous visitation, and also attitudinally through stated intent to visit.
This CBBE dimension is related to the destination’s second objective: To
stimulate interest in, and visitation to, the destination. This objective is also
related to the highest level of the hierarchy, brand loyalty, which has received
little attention in the destination marketing literature. Loyalty can be measured
by repeat visitation and word of mouth recommendations. In this way the CBBE
hierarchy incorporates perceptual and behavioral measures. There has been criti-
cism in the marketing literature of what has been failure in market research to link
attitudinal data with measures of actual behavior (see Schultz & Schultz, 2004).
Certainly, there has been a lack of longitudinal tourism studies investigating
130   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

the relationship between attitude and behavior (Pike, 2006), such as stated pref-
erences and actual travel.

METHOD

The 2003 longitudinal study took place during the autumn months of April
to June 2003 (Pike, 2006). Autumn in subtropical Brisbane provides ample
opportunities for domestic short breaks by car, including school, university,
and public holidays. April is the second most popular holiday month in
Australia (BTR, 2002). The first questionnaire contained questions about
recent and intended short break activity, ToMA/decision set preferences, and
ratings of salient short break destination attributes. The second questionnaire,
distributed three months later, contained questions about actual travel since
the first questionnaire, and perceptions of performance for five destinations
across the battery of salient attributes. For consistency, the 2007 study also
took place during April, when questionnaires were mailed to a new systematic
random sample of 3,000 households selected from the 2007 White Pages tele-
phone directory. An incentive prize of a short break holiday at a mystery
destination was offered. The questionnaire consisted of 173 items in three
sections. The first section included filter questions about attitudes toward
short breaks, two unaided questions to elicit ToMA destination and decision
set composition, and a battery of 22 destination attribute-importance items
using a 7-point scale (1 = not important, 7 = very important). A “don’t know”
option was also provided for each scale item. These attributes were selected
from the results of the 2003 study, supplemented by attributes from further
exploratory research using group applications of Repertory Grid with Brisbane
residents (Pike, 2007c).
The second section asked participants to rate the perceived performance of
the Coral Coast, along with four competing destinations selected from the deci-
sion set findings of the 2003 study, across the 22 cognitive scale items, and two
affective scale items. Questions were also used to identify measures of previous
visitation, intent to visit and word of mouth recommendations for each of the five
destinations. The third section contained questions related to demographics. The
back page of the questionnaire was left blank, apart from an open-ended ques-
tion inviting participants to indicate thoughts on how Queensland destinations
could improve to suit their needs.
It is important to reiterate the purpose of the project was to trial the CBBE
hierarchy dimensions as indicators of performance, particularly as they related
to brand objectives, rather than structurally test the model. For example, in this
study, brand salience was measured by tapping unaided top of mind awareness
rather than by a series of prompted recall scale items required in confirmatory
factor analysis. While researchers have started to undertake such tests of the
suitability of the model for destination brand measurement using structural
equation modeling (see Konečnik, 2006; Konečnick & Gartner, 2007), more
 Pike / DESTINATION BRANDING CASE STUDY   131

research is required to develop construct scale items that can be adapted across
travel situations.

RESULTS

A total of 447 completed questionnaires were received, which represented a

useable response rate of 17%. A further 7 incomplete questionnaires were
received, along with 337 returned because of incorrect mailing addresses, and 6
politely declining participation. The response was similar to the 19% obtained
in 2003. As shown in Table 1, the characteristics of the 2007 participants were
very similar to those who participated in 2003. These characteristics were gen-
erally similar to the 2001 Census population, albeit again with a higher level of
females and a lower level of those aged 18-24 years.
Participants indicated a strong familiarity with short break holidays, suggest-
ing a mean of three such trips by car per year, which was consistent with the
2003 sample. The mean importance of taking at least one short break by car
each year (1 = not important, 7 = very important) was 6.3, whereas the mean
likelihood of taking a short break by car in the next 12 months (1 = definitely
not, 7 = definitely) was 5.1. A total of 86% had taken a short break during the
previous 12 months.
The unaided awareness question elicited more than 100 ToMA destinations
from participants. For reporting succinctness the list has been categorized in
Table 2 by RTO geographic boundary. These results were also consistent with the
2003 study for each destination. The most popular destination region again the
Sunshine Coast, which was listed by almost half of the sample (46%). Less than
2% of participants listed Coral Coast destinations as their ToMA destination.
The mean number of destinations listed in decision sets was 3.1, in com-
parison with 3.8 in 2003. More than 90% of participants indicated a range of
between two and four destinations. Including the ToMA destinations, more than
120 places were elicited unaided from participants. This clearly indicates the
range of available destinations, and therefore competition, is extensive.
Practically, the decision set size and composition has serious implications for
those destinations not listed, such as the Coral Coast, given half of the sample
indicated a likelihood of taking a short break within the next 3 months. These
destinations are less likely to be considered in the selection process. Coral Coast
destinations were listed 25 times in decision sets, in comparison with 58 in
2003. The ToMA and decision set findings highlight a lack of improvement in
brand salience between 2003 and 2007. This is important given brand salience
is the foundation of the CBBE hierarchy.
Although the Coral Coast did not rate well in terms of unaided awareness,
more favorable results emerged when participants were prompted to recall the
destination. Table 3 shows the perceived performance of the Coral Coast
across the cognitive attributes was generally favorable. With the exception of
two attributes, “within a comfortable drive” and “trendy atmosphere,” the
means were above the scale midpoint. Whereas the latter was not deemed
132   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Table 1
Characteristics of Participants in 2003 and 2007

2003 (n) 2003 (Valid %) 2007 (n) 2007 (Valid %)

Gender
Male 199 38.0 169 38.1
Female 324 62.0 275 61.9
Total 521 444
Missing 2 3
Age (years)
18-24 16 3.1 16 3.6
25-44 212 40.6 166 37.5
45-64 244 46.7 205 46.3
65+ 50 9.6 56 12.6
Total 522 443
Missing 1 4
Annual household
  income ($)
<78,000 372 73.2 243 56.1
≥78,000 136 26.8 193 43.9
Total 508 433
Missing 15 19
Marital status
Single 57 10.9 50 11.3
Married/permanent 395 75.7 335 75.6
   partner
Separated, divorced, 70 13.4 58 13.1
   widowed
Total 522 443
Missing 1 4
Number of dependent
  children
0 283 54.1 238 53.5
1-2 182 34.8 163 36.6
3+ 56 10.7 44 9.9
Total 521 445
Missing 2 2
Highest level
  of education
High school 211 40.6 149 33.5
TAFE (technical and 123 23.7 101 22.7
   further education)
University graduate 164 31.5 147 33.0
Other 22 4.2 48 10.8
Total 520 445
Missing 3 2

important, the former may play a major role in decision making given the
mean maximum comfortable drive time to a short break destination indicated
by the 2003 and 2007 participants was 4 hours. “Within a comfortable drive”
also represents one of the three key problem areas the new brand had sought
 Pike / DESTINATION BRANDING CASE STUDY   133

Table 2
Unaided Top of Mind Awareness (ToMA) Destinations

2003 2003 2007 2007

Region (Frequency) (Valid %) (Frequency) (Valid %)

Sunshine Coast 231 45.1 202 45.9

Gold Coast 96 18.8 72 16.4
Northern New South Wales 57 11.1 64 14.5
Fraser Coast 33 6.4 24 5.5
Darling Downs/Warwick 20 3.9 22 4.7
Coral Coast 11 2.1 6 1.4
Other 64 12.6 50 11.6
Missing 11 7
Total 523 447

to overcome. From a positioning perspective, of the competitive set of desti-

nations, the Coral Coast rated highest on four attributes. It is suggested that
two of these, “friendly locals” and “uncrowded,” represent an as yet untapped
market position that the RTO could better exploit to improve other measures
of CBBE. For example, during 2004 one of the destination’s attractions,
Bargara Beach, was awarded Tourism Queensland’s “Friendliest Beach” (see
Tourism Queensland, 2005, p. 10). Cronbach’s alpha for the 22-item scale
battery was .79.
For the two affect items the Coral Coast was rated the most “sleepy” of the
five destinations, as it was in 2003, which could be keeping with the leadership
position held on the cognitive attributes. Although the destination was rated
favorably on the “pleasant” dimension, the mean of 4.7 was the lowest of the
competitive set of destinations, and lower than in 2003.
Another important issue in destination image questionnaire design is avoid-
ing uninformed responses (Pike, 2007d). Therefore a “don’t know” option was
provided alongside each of the cognitive attribute scale items. For the attribute
importance items, the maximum rate of “don’t know” usage was 1.3%, which
indicated participants were familiar with the attributes. However, every Coral
Coast performance item attracted a “don’t know” nonresponse rate of more than
30%. This provides additional information for the marketer, which might be lost
if a “don’t know” option is not provided. Almost one third of participants were
unable to express an opinion about the extent to which the Coral Coast provides
each attribute. Not using such a nonresponse option runs the risk of attracting
uninformed responses, such as using the scale midpoint to denote neutrality. For
the Coral Coast RTO, the implication is that more work is needed to improve
awareness of what the destination has to offer, which was one of the 2003 brand
objectives.
More than 90% of participants had previously visited their ToMA destina-
tion. However, although 43% of participants indicated having previously visited
134   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Table 3
Brand Associations

2003 Rank 2007 Rank

of Coral of Coral
2003 Mean Coast in 2007 2007 Mean Coast in
Coral Coast Competitive Attribute Coral Coast Competitive
Performance Set Importance Performance Set

Cognitive attributesa
Pleasant climate 5.9 4 5.3 5.8   4=
Good fishing and 5.7 3 — — —
   boating
Relaxing, uncrowded 5.6 1 — — —
   and not touristy
Good value for 5.5   2= 6.1 5.1   2=
   money
A safe destination 5.5 4 6.1 5.4 3
Places for walking 5.4 4 4.3 4.5 4
Friendly locals 5.4   2= 5.0 5.2 1
Suitable 5.2 5 6.2 5.1 5
   accommodation
Good beaches 5.1 5 4.8 5.1 5
Lots to see and do 5.0 5 4.9 5.0 5
High levels of 4.9 4 4.7 4.4 5
   service
Good cafes and 4.7 4 5.1 4.4   4=
   restaurants
Within a 3.6 5 5.2 3.8 5
   comfortable drive
Beautiful scenery — — 5.4 5.6 4
Uncrowded — — 5.2 5.0 1=
Places for swimming — — 4.7 5.3 5
Not touristy — — 4.4 4.6 1
Affordable packages — — 5.4 4.9 2
Good shopping — — 3.9 4.0 4
Family destination — — 4.3 5.4 3
Water sports — — 3.1 4.7 5
Historical places — — 3.9 4.6 1
Marine life — — 3.9 5.3   2=
Trendy atmosphere — — 3.0 3.5 5
Affective attributesb
Sleepy/arousing 3.8 5 Not applicable 3.7 5
Unpleasant/ 5.0 5 Not applicable 4.7 5
   pleasant

a. Cognitive items used Likert-type scales anchored at strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).
b. Affective scales items used 7-point semantic differential scales.
Note: = denotes equal position

the Coral Coast, the mean likelihood of visiting the Coral Coast within the next
year was 2.7. This was the lowest of the competitive set of destinations, as it
was in 2003. These findings suggest a low level of brand resonance in terms of
an indicator of future performance. For the measure of brand loyalty partici-
pants were asked to rate the extent to which they would recommend each desti-
nation to friends. On this 7-point scale (1 = definitely not, 7 = definitely), the
 Pike / DESTINATION BRANDING CASE STUDY   135

mean for the Coral Coast was 3.9. This result, which was not measured in 2003,
was the lowest of the five destinations.
Key results from the 2003 study were presented to four tourism-related orga-
nizations in the Coral Coast region, including the RTO. As a result of the
research Bundaberg Region Ltd changed part of the focus of its domestic mar-
keting plan in 2004 to position the destination in the Brisbane market as “an
attractive, accessible and affordable short-break destination” (www.tq.com.au).
In comparing results between 2003 and 2007, it is suggested this approach has
not yet resulted in improved CBBE for the destination.

CONCLUSIONS

DMOs are increasingly engaging in place branding in the attempt to differ-

entiate from competing destinations. A destination brand comprises the supply-
side desired identity and the demand-side image of the destination held by the
consumer. Therefore a hierarchy of brand equity is proposed for DMOs as a
means of measuring the effectiveness of the investment in branding, in terms of
congruence between brand identity and brand image. Most of the destination
branding papers published since the literature started in 1998 have a strong
practical focus on reporting the brand development process. Other than Curtis’s
(2001) report on the development of Oregon’s brand during the 1980s and
1990s, there has been little analysis of the effectiveness of destination brands
over time. To date there has been little published about what performance indi-
cators may be used to measure the performance of a brand campaign.
Destination marketing takes place within a politically charged environment,
with DMO staff accountable to government funding agencies, local tourism busi-
nesses, travel intermediaries, and host community. Pressure to justify brand
rationale and to change brand initiatives can be exerted by such stakeholders. It
is suggested CBBE provides destination marketers with a useful communication
tool to guide stakeholders on macro objectives, in addition to offering a practical
and structured approach toward measuring performance of branding initiatives.
One limitation of the study is that two cross-sectional surveys were used
rather than a longitudinal design. However, the characteristics of both samples
were similar, as were there short break habits and preferences. A further limita-
tion was that it is not possible to test relationships between the proposed CBBE
measures and a dependent variable such as financial performance or market
share, because of a lack of such data. Nevertheless, for the destination of inter-
est, the structure of the results provide measures of brand salience, brand associa-
tions, brand resonance, and brand loyalty in the most important market, in the
context of short breaks by car, after four years of a new brand campaign. For the
Coral Coast, the 2003 results indicated the destination held weak CBBE in its
most important market at the time of the launch of a new brand campaign. The
CBBE structure provides indicators, related to the brand campaign objectives,
for which the effectiveness of future promotional activity can be evaluated. For
example, the first objective of the new destination brand campaign was to
136   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

increase awareness of the region. Brand salience is the foundation of the hier-
archy, and in terms of unaided awareness, the destination achieved no improve-
ment between 2003 and 2007. The second objective was to stimulate interest in
and travel to the destination. Brand resonance was operationalized by stated
intent to visit for the next 12 months. In both the 2003 and 2007 studies, half of
the sample had previously visited the destination, and yet the stated intent to
visit in the future was the lowest of the competitive set of destinations. The third
objective was to educate consumers about what there is to see and do. Brand
associations were measured by asking participants to rate the performance of a
competitive set of destinations across a list of determinant attributes. The attri-
bute-based approach of the CBBE hierachy enables destination marketers to
identify positioning opportunities for competitive advantage. The results high-
lighted a positioning opportunity that has not yet been exploited by the destina-
tion. These attributes could be used more explicitly in future brand promotions
because the easiest route to the mind is to reinforce positively held perceptions
rather than to attempt to try to change opinions.
The results clearly highlight the challenge facing the destination in what is
a crowded and competitive market. Of concern is the high level of “don’t
know” responses to the cognitive attribute questions. This suggests the failure
of the campaign to date rests with the inability to increase awareness of the
destination’s attributes in the Brisbane market. However, it should be remem-
bered that changing the image of a destination is a long term mission (see
Gartner & Hunt, 1987). More research is required into the length of time
required for destination brand image change. For example, although the results
indicate a failure over a 4-year period, there might be a point at which critical
mass, in terms of induced image formation agent effectiveness, takes place.
This could hypothetically result in an exponential increase in desired percep-
tions. Also, it must be acknowledged that destination success is at the mercy of
exogenous forces outside the control of destination marketers, for which this
study is not able to account for. However, Keller (2003) suggested the power
of the CBBE hierarchy is as much a predictor of future success as it is past
performance measurement. In this regard, actual visitor numbers from the tar-
get market declined during the period between the 2003 and 2007 surveys
(Tourism Queensland, 2007).
Branding underpins all marketing communications, and all short-term mar-
keting initiatives should focus on developing favorable brand salience and
brand associations in the long term (Keller, 1993). Linking the brand’s attri-
butes to consumer needs will lead to enhanced brand resonance. Successful
delivery of the brand promise at the destination may lead to increased brand
loyalty, particularly in the short break drive market where consumers have
favorite places to which they make repeat visits. Repeating the CBBE research
again at a future point in time will enable a continued assessment of success for
each of the destination’s three brand objectives. For an emerging destination
with very little formal market research, it is suggested the hierarchy provides an
important means of accountability to stakeholders.
 Pike / DESTINATION BRANDING CASE STUDY   137

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: Free Press.

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: Free Press.
Axelrod, J. N. (1968). Attitude measures that predict purchase. Journal of Advertising
Research, 8, 3-17.
Banks, S. (1950). The relationship between preference and purchase of brands. Journal
of Marketing, 15(October), 145-157.
Bureau of Travel Research. (2002). Travel by Australians, 2001: Annual results of the
National Visitor Survey 2001. Canberra, Australia: Author.
Chon, K. (1990). The role of destination image in tourism: A review and discussion.
Tourist Review, 45(2), 2-9.
Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Beal, C., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand preferences,
and purchase intent. Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 25-40.
Crockett, S. R., & Wood, L. J. (1999). Brand Western Australia: A totally integrated
approach to destination branding. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5, 276-289.
Crompton, J. (1992). Structure of vacation destination choice sets. Annals of Tourism
Research, 19, 420-434.
Curtis, J. (2001). Branding a state: The evolution of Brand Oregon. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 7, 75-81.
Dioko, L. A. N., & So, S. (2005, December). “Welcome.” In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Destination Branding and Marketing for Regional
Tourism Development, p. 2. Macau, SAR: Institute for Tourism Studies.
Dosen, D. O., Vranesevic, T., & Prebezac, D. (1998). The importance of branding in the
development of marketing strategy of Croatia as tourist destination. Acta Turistica,
10, 93-182.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). The meaning and measurement of destination
image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), 2-12.
Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Garcia, H. C. (2002). Destination image: Toward a con-
ceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 56-78.
Gardner, B. B., & Levy, S. J. (1955). The product and the brand. Harvard Business
Review, March-April, 33-39.
Gartner, W. C., & Hunt, J. D. (1987). An analysis of state image change over a twelve-
year period (1971-1983). Journal of Travel Research, 26(2), 15-19.
Hall, D. (1999). Destination branding, niche marketing and national image projection in
Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5, 227-237.
Howard, J. A. (1963). Marketing management: Analysis and planning. Homewood, IL:
Irwin.
Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: Wiley.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(January), 1-22.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Kim, H., Kim. W. G., & An, J. A. (2003). The effect of consumer-based brand equity on
firms’ financial performance. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20, 335-351.
Konečnik, M. (2006). Croatian-based brand equity for Slovenia as a tourism destination.
Economic and Business Review, 8, 83-108.
Konečnik, M., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Customer-based brand equity for a destination.
Annals of Tourism Research, 34, 400-421.
138   JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & TOURISM RESEARCH

Kotler, P., Haider, D. H., & Rein, I. (1993). Marketing places. New York: Free Press.
Lavidge, R. E., & Steiner, G. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of adver-
tising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25, 59-62.
Mackay, H. (1988). The holiday market: A motivational analysis. Marketscan. Sydney.
Mackay, M. M. (2001). Application of brand equity measures in service markets. Journal
of Services Marketing, 15, 210-221.
Mayo, E. J., & Jarvis, L. P. (1981). The psychology of leisure travel. Boston: CBI.
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Pride, R. (Eds.). (2002). Destination branding: Creating the
unique destination proposition. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Pike, S. (2002). Destination image analysis: A review of 142 papers from 1973-2000.
Tourism Management, 23, 541-549.
Pike, S. (2004). Destination marketing organisations. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Pike, S. (2006). Destination decision sets: A longitudinal comparison of stated destina-
tion preferences and actual travel. Journal of Vacation Marketing. 12(4): 319-328.
Pike, S. (2007). Destination image literature: 2001-2007. Acta Turistica, 19, 107-125.
Pike, S. (2007b). Consumer-based brand equity for destinations: Practical DMO perfor-
mance measures. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing. 22(1): 51-61.
Pike, S. (2007b). Repertory Grid Analysis in group settings to elicit salient destination
brand attributes. Current Issues in Tourism. 10(4): 378-392.
Pike, S. (2007d). Destination image questionnaires – avoiding uninformed responses.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Research. 2(Fall): 151-160.
Pride, R. (2002). Brand Wales: “Natural revival.” In N. Morgan, A. Prichard, & R. Pride
(Eds.), Destination branding: Creating the unique destination proposition (109-123).
Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Pritchard, A., & Morgan, N. (1998). Mood marketing—the new destination branding
strategy: A case of Wales the brand. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 4, 215-229.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Ritchie, R. J. B. (1998).The branding of tourism destinations: Past
achievements and future challenges. In P. Keller (Ed.), Destination marketing:
Reports of the 48th AIEST Congress (pp. 89-116). St Gallen, Switzerland: Association
Internationale d’Experts Scientifiques du Tourisme.
Schultz, D., & Schultz, H. (2004). Brand babble: Sense and nonsense about branding.
Mason, OH: South-Western.
Slater, J. (2002). Brand Louisiana: “Come as you are. Leave different.©” In N. Morgan,
A. Pritchard, & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding: Creating the unique destina-
tion proposition (pp. 148-162). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Still, R. (2002, September 21). Region’s new brand unveiled at launch. News Mail, p. 3.
Tasci, D. A., Gartner, W. C., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2007). Conceptualization and operational-
ization of destination image. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31, 194-223.
Thompson, J. R., & Cooper, P. D. (1979). Additional evidence on the limited size of
evoked and inept sets of travel destination. Journal of Travel Research, 17(3), 23-25.
Tourism Forecasting Council. (2000). Steady growth for domestic tourism. Forecast,
5(2), 4-8.
Tourism Forecasting Council. (2001). Outlook for domestic tourism: 2001-2010.
Forecast, October, 24-39.
Tourism Queensland. (2005). TQ News. Issue 1, Summer.
Tourism Queensland. (2007). Bundaberg Region destination management plan 2007-
2010. Retrieved September 14, 2009, from http://www.tq.com.au/destinations/central-
south-great-barrier-reef-and-bundaberg-zone/bundaberg/plans-and-strategies/
destination-management-plan/destination-management-plan_home.cfm
 Pike / DESTINATION BRANDING CASE STUDY   139

Vanhove, N. (2005). The economics of tourism destinations. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

White, A. (2000). Travelling tips. Leisure Management, 20(3), 30-34.
Wilson, C. E. (1981). A procedure for the analysis of consumer decision making. Journal
of Advertising Research, 21(2), 31-36.
Woodside, A. G., & Wilson, E. J. (1985). Effects of consumer awareness of brand adver-
tising on preference. Journal of Advertising Research, 25(4), 41-48.

Submitted January 30, 2008

Final Revision Submitted July 9, 2008
Accepted September 18, 2008
Refereed Anonymously

Steven Pike, PhD (sd.pike@qut.edu.au), is a senior lecturer in the School of Advertising,

Marketing & Public Relations Queensland University of Technology, Gardens Point
Campus, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.