Ainars Brencis
School of Business Administration Turiba
Graudu 68, LV1058, Riga, Latvia
Phone: +371 29453616 e-mail: ainarsb@turiba.lv
ABSTRACT
Purpose – to assess the brand image of Croatia as a tourist destination in minds of Latvian non visitors and visitors using the method of unstructured and structured techniques
Design/methodology/approach – Research was split into two: Qualitative part conducted through in-depth interviews with sample of 76 Latvians living in Riga. Quantitative part consisted of a survey with sample frame of 253 respondents living in Riga.
Findings – research with some exceptions showed that Latvians have quite clear image of Croatia. It is mainly positive and polycentric. The research results revealed scenery/nature, sea, sun, sand and mountains as the main brand attributes of Croatia. There were also negative attributes such as
‘war’. Main choice factors of Croatia for Latvians are: ‘scenery and nature’,
‘sea and beach’, ‘climate’, ‘new destination’ and ‘value for money’.
Research also showed a large discrepancy in association attributes of non visitors and visitors and a smaller one in destination choice factors. Visitors to Croatia tend to have more affective and holistic image than non visitors.
Research limitations/implications – due to different sample of non visitors and visitors some minor discrepancies in finding might take place.
Practical implications – this research might be useful for Croatian destination marketers in building marketing strategies towards holidaymakers from Latvia.
Originality/value – the paper points out the image, its association attributes and choice factors of Croatia as a possible source of competitive advantage of the destination.
Special thanks to Miss Signeta Reimane in helping to carry out the survey.
Keywords: Image of a destination, measuring image, Croatia
1.
INTRODUCTION AND THE BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The new millennium opened global race for place competitiveness as it was realized that place image plays significant role in affecting decisions of local and international consumers and investors. As Trueman (2004) states ‘places act as umbrella brands for a portfolio of leisure, investment and business tourism, stakeholder and citizen welfare products’. At the local and international levels, tourism destinations often compare on nothing more than the images held in the minds of potential travelers. Most critically it refers to places without unique selling proposition like the Republic of Latvia. Sleight
(1993) states that markets are no longer as mass-oriented or monolithic as they once were, and that successful marketing depends on the extent to which more specialized consumer demands or lifestyles can be identified and utilized. With rapidly growing number of countries joining the branding wave ‘craze’, it was becoming clear that those states that fail to find their image or create own brand would end up paying a heavy economic price
(Park, 2009). Places both developed and developing are under increasing pressure of global competition. Today place officials try to manage their image rather than allow their state image develop on its own.
The demand for the most effective place brand-building strategies is critical for emerging places, as established places have been building their reputations for centuries, while post communist and other emerging nations are keen to catch up within a 20-year period. Croatia and Latvia are similar nations (table 1). Both are former members of political entities of Yugoslavia and Soviet Union. Croatia is classified as an emerging and developing economy by the World Bank and is expected to join European Union between 2011 and 2012. On the little smaller land area Croatia has double as much population as in Latvia.
Table 1
Croatia and Latvia - comparison data
Latvia (Republic of Latvia) Croatia (Republic of Croatia)
Capital
Location
Riga
Eastern Europe, bordering the
Baltic Sea
Area
Population
64.589 sq km*
2.217.969 (2010 est.)*
GDP US$ 33.9 billion (2008)*
GDP per capita in PPS 49 (2009) f*
International tourist 5.5 mil. (crossed the border), arrivals annually
Contribution of tourism in GDP
~0.7 mil. (stayed in hotels)*
1.75% (direct), 7.5%
(indirect)*
Zagreb
South-eastern Europe, bordering Adriatic Sea
56.542 sq km
4.429.409 (2009 est.)
US$ 63.9 billion (2008)
64 (2009) f
9. 335 million
18%

Brand symbol of tourism
*Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia
SWOT analysis of Croatian economy developed by Baldagira (2009) reveals tourism as one of the key strength factors of Croatia in hand with high economy market, dynamic economy, competitiveness on global market, natural resources, low level of pollution and good geographical position.
Tourism is notable source of income in Croatia with 9.33 million international arrivals annually and generates revenues in excess of 7 billion
EUR. Croatia is ranked amongst the top 20 most popular tourist destinations in the world. International tourism generates about 18% of Croatian GDP and accounts for 70% of total exported services (Executive Summary of WTTC’s
Travel and Tourism 2010). Places such as: Plitvice Lakes National Park,
Historical Complex of Split, Old city of Dubrovnik and Trogir, Euphrasian
Basilica, Cathedral of Saint James and Stari Grad Plain are included in the
UNSCO World Heritage List.
Croatian marketing activities to promote destination as ‘The Mediterranean as It Once was’ can be seen in distant countries proclaiming sea as the most distinctive attribute. Latvia on the other hand is positioned as place to be enjoyed slowly promising the customer to forget the rapid tempo of today’s life.
Croatia as tourism destination can be found in product offer list of Latvian tour operators and agents. This destination has been promoted in annual international tourism exhibition ‘Balttour’ taking place in Riga. According to
Baldagira (2009) in 2009 there were proximally 8000 Latvian tourists in
Croatia, or about 0.1% of the total foreign tourists. They spend on average
3.1 nights and 50 EUR per day when on holiday in Croatia and prefer being at the seaside.
In order to develop a positioning strategy, destination marketers should know the perceived strengths and weaknesses of their destinations (Baloglu &
McCleary, 1999). General information, marketing messages, friend advice, previous visits and other sources build up the brand image of Croatia in the minds of Latvian citizens. Is it positive or negative, strong or weak or Croatia has no image? And what are the main attributes constructing the brand image of Croatia? The aim of this paper is to assess the brand image of Croatia as a tourist destination using a progressive method of unstructured and structured techniques such as word and free association.
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW

Brand image is an important concept in consumer behaviour (Dobni and
Zinkhan, 1990). Brand image represents the actual image held by consumers, which might or might not be related to that intended in the brand identity. An image is a set of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that a person holds about an object (Kotler, 1991). Keller (1993) suggests image is ‘the perceptions about a brand reflected as associations existing in the memory of the consumer’.
Image is also defined as a perceptual phenomenon formed through a consumer's reasoned and emotional interpretation and which has both cognitive (beliefs) and affective (feelings) components (Dobni & Zinkhan,
1990).
In tourism context an image of a destination is the sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that people have of a place or destination (Kotler et.al.
1993).
Morgan and Pritchard (1998, p. 140) admit that destination brand represents a unique combination of product characteristics and added values. Low and
Lamb (2000) add that it consists of functional and symbolic brand benefits, which have taken on a relevant meaning, which is inextricably linked to that brand, awareness of which might be conscious or intuitive. Prebensen (2007) suggests that the destination brand consists of a mix of brand elements to identify and distinguish a destination through positive image building. Prayag
(2010) concludes that from marketer’s point of view, a destination brand should represent a combination of tangible and emotional experiences communicated to the consumer through brand elements that should facilitate brand choice.
From a consumer’s point of view, the destination brand is a cluster of perceptions attached to various destination experiences sold under a specific brand name (Ephron, 1996). Bargeman and van der Poel (2006) describe tourists as individuals that act rather rationally and evaluate options in the pursuit of maximal benefits. Consumers go through a step-by-step process in selecting their final vacation destination and as MacInnis and Price, (1987) suggest they make product choice decisions based on the images they form of different brands. Gartner (1989) states that the traveler’s anticipations are derived from the image the traveler has of the destination. The image represents the destination in the traveler’s mind and gives him or her pre-taste of that destination (Fakeye and Crompton, 1991). Destination with the most favorable image connotes the greatest level of need satisfaction to the traveler. (Konecnik, 2002). Therefore the more favorable is the image of a destination, the greater the likelihood of choice (Goodrich, 1978).
Theory suggests that destination attributes are important factors to influence destinations choice. Nicolau and Mas (2006) name them as explicative dimensions of visitors’ destination choice. Destination attributes in visitors’ mind can be positive or negative. Guided by attributes potential ‘visitors

either select the destination for further scrutiny or discard it from their consideration sets’ (Seddighi et al ., 2001). Thus brand image can be defined as a multidimensional construct (Martinez and de Chernatony, 2004) which is formed trough negative or positive attributes established over a long period of time based on communication processes largely independent of marketing’s control. A destination with a long political/social history or cultural heritage arguably may have developed a strong positive image. Such images are referred as organic images (Beerli and Martin, 2004; Tasci and
Gartner, 2007). Gunn (1997) suggests that individuals who have never visited a destination nor have sought out any tourism-specific information will likely have some kind of information stored in their memory. At this point there might be an incomplete image, to which the traveler adds other bits and pieces until it becomes complete. It is believed that complete image is built upon the customers visit of the destination. For this reason non visitors are believed to have incomplete image but visitors complete one. As stated by
Tasci and Gartner (2007) organic images are replaced by induced images, which are formed by exposure to a destination’s marketing program. While the organic image is beyond the control of the destination area, the induced image is directed by the destination's marketing efforts (Konecnik, 2002).
Gartner (1993) argues that the projected brand image has a very small role in destination image formation in comparison to organic sources, which have more credibility, reach and impact. Because of direct experience with the destination, the image tends to be more complex and differentiated (Fakeye and Crompton, 1991). Goodrich (1978) names image formed by a visit as primary and the image formed by information received from external sources as secondary. Therefore consensus is that the stage of an individual's image depends on his or her experience with the destination.
Place attributes are divided into functional and symbolic. Functional attributes build up cognitive/perceptive evaluations while symbolic attributes form affective evaluations. Cognitive evaluation refers to beliefs and knowledge about a destination whereas affective evaluation refers to feelings about a destination (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999). Echtner and Ritchie,
(1991) also names holistic component in structure of destination image. It represents the essence of the brand, summarizing its functional and symbolic image attributes (Morgan et al., 2002). In other words it represents overall impression of a place. Therefore affective evaluation is influenced by cognitive components and holistic impression is formed by both – cognitive and affective components.
There is also a further dimension of destination image that Echtner and
Ritchie believed had been overlooked previously, i.e. that images can be placed on a common/unique continuum consisting of more unique characteristics, for example unique tourism resources like pyramids of Egypt

or natural features such as the Niagara waterfall. Completed threedimensional model developed by Echter & Ritchie (1993) using the attribute/holistic, functional/psychological and common/unique continua has been frequently used in subsequent destination image studies (Baloglu and
Mangaloglu, 2001).
A key role of marketing is to develop the destination as a positive perceptual entity or brand (de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998).
Distinctive brand image results from a successful brand positioning strategy that facilitates consumer’s brand choice (Morgan and Pritchard, 1998). The concept of brand positioning, introduced by Trout and Ries (1979), serves as a mechanism by which to achieve congruence between the brand identity and brand image. The positioning of a destination is the process of establishing a distinctive place of that destination in the minds of potential visitors (Gartner,
1989).
Blain et al. (2005, p. 337) suggests the most comprehensive definition of positioning in terms both consumer and supplier: Destination branding is the set of marketing activities that (1) support the creation of a name, symbol, logo, word mark or other graphic that readily identifies and differentiates a destination; that (2) consistently convey the expectation of a memorable travel experience that is uniquely associated with the destination; that (3) serve to consolidate and reinforce the emotional connection between the visitor and the destination; and that (4) reduce consumer search costs and perceived risk. Collectively, these activities serve to create a destination image that positively influences consumer destination choice.
Crompton et al. (1992) suggested that, for effective positioning of a destination, the strong attributes that are perceived as important by visitors should be first identified. Strong attributes in hand with slogans and visualized support helps to get attention of the customer between the offer of the rival places and substitute products in the market as Howard (1963) believes that customer actively considers a range of two to six brands in the decision process. Distinctive brand name reduces the number of alternatives considered within the consideration set (Ballantyne et al., 2006).
3.
METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted in two phases. First, a qualitative phase that focused on the use of unstructured methods to identify image components followed by a semi-structured instrument that used free associations for quantification purposes.
3.1 The qualitative phase

The first phase, the qualitative inquiry, involved personal interviews with 76 inhabitants of Riga. These were semi-structured interviews and took on average 15 minutes to answer. To those people who have visited Croatia the following broad open-ended questions were asked:
1) What made you to choose Croatia?
2) How Croatia differs from destinations you have been to?
Broad open-ended questions with the same meaning but expressed in different way were asked to people who have not been to Croatia:
1) Is there something that could make you to choose Croatia as the travel destination?
2) How Croatia differs from destinations you know?
The set of first questions for both sample groups were intended to identify the main factors influencing brand awareness and choice while the second was aimed at identifying differentiating factors for the destination brand. The audio records were analyzed to derive image attributes of Croatia expressed by respondents to be used in the next phase of the study.
3.2 The quantitative phase
In the second phase a combination of open and close-ended questioning was employed. The first question was a word association technique and was asked to both respondent groups – visitors and non-visitors and was limited to 3 words in order to identify the most distinctive attributes, ‘When I say the word ‘Croatia’, what are the first three words that come to your mind?’ This question enables to quantify the image associations of Croatia and to find out whether brand image of Croatia is monocentric or polycentric. Monocentric images are associated with one very distinctive attribute of the place such as
Egyptian pyramids or Eiffel tower in Paris. Polycentric image is formed by several distinctive attributes possessed by place. The second open-ended question was, ‘what are the three main factors that influenced your choice of
Croatia as a destination?’ to former visitors of Croatia and, ‘what are the three main factors that would influence you to choose Croatia as a destination?’ to non-visitors of Croatia.
These questions were aimed to reveal choice factors and differentiating attributes of Croatia. The third question was close ended and consisted of 20 attributes derived from the previous phase to confirm brand associations, measured on a nominal scale using the ‘yes-nodon’t know’ options. The fourth question asked respondents to identify attributes that strongly differentiated Croatia from other similar competing destinations using the list of 20 attributes derived from the previous phase, measured on a nominal scale of ‘yes-no-don’t know’ options. Approach of nominal scaling was used for respondents to retrieve or not retrieve attribute

concepts stored in their mind about Croatia as a destination. Also demographic questions were asked consisting of person’s gender and age.
Extra questions to former visitors of Croatia were asked. These consisted of purpose of visit, length of stay and visitation level. The questionnaire was pre-tested on 10 respondents. After this some minor formatting changes were made to make it more perceptible.
3.3 Sampling and data collection
Respondents were approached at different locations of Riga city by the interviewer to conduct the survey. These locations also provided a sampling frame of visitors with diverse age and personal background.
At the end of data collection, 253 respondents had completed the survey. Out of total respondents, 181 had never visited Croatia, while 72 of them had been to Croatia.
4. FINDINGS
The demographics of the both phases indicated that the average age of respondents was similar (approx. 29 years) with female (approx. 72%) dominating the sample (see table 2). Both research phases show that proximally 75% of respondents have never visited Croatia while 25% have been to this destination. Those respondents who visited Croatia answered that they mostly went on holidays and in majority of cases spent between 5 and 7 days. The major correlation is seen in visitation status that differs slightly in both phases. Mostly respondents were first time visitors - 90% in qualitative phase and 67% in quantitative phase. High percentage of repeaters shows the tendency of growing satisfaction with Croatia as destination and probable variety of things to see and do which is not possible to enjoy during one trip.
Purpose of visit and length of stay reflect the official Croatian statistics, which show that the main purpose of travel for Latvians was holidays and average stay in Croatia was around 5.1 days.
Qualitative phase (n=76)
Table 2
Demographic and traveling characteristics of respondents
% Quantitative phase (n=253) %
Average age
Male
Female
Unvisited
Visited
Main purpose of visit of those who visited
29.4 Average age
28 Male
72
74
Female
Unvisited
26 Visited
Main purpose of visit of those who visited
28.1
29
71
72
28

Holiday
Business
VFR
Other
Length of stay
1day
2-4 days
5-7 days
8-10 days
11 and more days
Visitation status
First timer
Repeater
20
15
45
90
-
-
10
10
10
90
10
Holiday
Business
VFR
Other
Length of stay
1day
2-4 days
5-7 days
8-10 days
11 and more days
Visitation status
First timer
Repeater
4.1 Image associations with Croatia
Trough semi-structured survey a total of 599 responses were recorded where
401 belonged to non visitors and 198 to former visitors of Croatia. Survey with minor exceptions proved that most of respondents do possess an image of Croatia and it is mainly positive. Some respondents could not fill all three word associations required in survey. Instead they filled one or two. Only few respondents admitted having no image about Croatia.
Non visitors (17.71%) mentioned mountains as the word most often associated with this destination (table 3). Visitors on the other hand, say that sea and beach is their main association. This might be explained by general geographical knowledge of non visitors, who see Croatia in the bottom of
Europe which generally is hilly, sunny and situated by the sea shore. There is no outspoken correlation in top 5 association attributes between non visitors and visitors. Attributes are mainly related to Croatian natural assets – picturesque nature, sea, sun and sand and finally mountains. The top 10 associations are common by nature (mountains, beach, sun or Waterfalls).
Further there are unique attributes such as Zagreb (11.place), Dubrovnik or
Krk island. Visitor responses showed higher tendency to mention unique attributes since non visitors having uncompleted image, relied more on common ones. Also in the list of attributes one can see psychological attributes such as ‘war’ (6 th
place for non visitors), ‘fun’ or ‘obscured place’.
Finally there are functional attributes like ‘weather’ or ‘food’. Responses of table 3 were divided into cognitive dominating the survey, affective and holistic. Last two were more expressed by visitors of Croatia since they had the chance to taste the country, remember their emotions and build up overall impression about the country.
The largest correlation between association attributes of non visitors and visitors is seen in ‘cultural diversity’, ‘flora’, ‘war’, ‘soccer’, ‘sun’, ‘Krk island’, ‘friendly people’ and ‘Dubrovnik’. Attribute of Croatian lakes differs
9
28
40
82
3
3
12
23
-
67
33

the most as it is in the bottom for non visitors and between the top 5 images for visitors.
Non visitors (n=181)
Percentage of responses
Attributes
Table 3
Word associations with Croatia
Visitors (n=72)
Percentage of responses
Attributes
0.75
0
0
0
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
1.75
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.25
1.00
1.00
0.75
2.49
2.24
2.24
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.75
17.71
13.22
10.47
8.73
3.24
2.74
2.74
2.49
2.99
2.24
1.00
0
Mountains/cliffs
Sea & Beach
Weather/climate
Scenery/nature
1:2
2:1
3:7
4:4
Sea & Beach
Mountains/cliffs
Sun
Scenery/nature
Cultural diversity 5:13 Lakes
War 6:15 Waterfalls
Flora (green) 7:29 Weather/climate
Waterfalls 8:6 Food and drink
Soccer 9:23 Holidays
Sun 10:3 Krk island
Zagreb 11:11 Zagreb
Food and drink 12:8 Friendly people
Croatia 13:30 Cultural diversity
Wine 14:14 Wine
Holidays 15:9 War
Europe 16:24 Architecture
National colors 17:28 Cities
Architecture 18:16 Castles
Yugoslavia 19:21 Dubrovnik
Winter/snow 20:25 Dalmatia
Krk island 21:10 Yugoslavia
Cities 22:17 Balkans
Basketball 23:26 Soccer
Dark people 24:27 Europe
Balkans 25:22 Winter/snow
Friendly people 26:12 Basketball
Castles 27:18 Dark people
Lakes 28:5 National colors
Dubrovnik 29:19 Flora (green)
Dalmatia 30:20 Croatia
Springs 31:31 Springs
Fun 1:1
Love -
Freedom
Heroism
-
-
Obscure/unvisited
Clean/pure
Popular place
Peace of mind
1:6
2:1
3:7
6:2
Fun
Love
Freedom
Heroism
Clean/pure
Peace of mind
Adventure
Expensive
1.52
0.51
0.51
0.51
1.01
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.52
1.52
1.01
1.01
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.00
2.53
2.53
2.02
2.02
2.02
1.52
1.52
1.52
21.72
11.62
11.62
9.60
6.57
4.55
3.54
2.53

0
0
Adventure
Expensive
5:3
-
Bad service
Obscure/unvisited
0.51
0.00
0 Bad service - Popular place 0.00
Despite the fact that time has passed war as a stereotype is still recalled as an association especially in minds of non visitors. Visitors also mention it but to a less extent. In qualitative phase of research there were respondents whose associations with war or unstable situation prevent them from choosing
Croatia as their tourism destination. One person admitted that she has read about Croatia as very beautiful and rich in attractions country, but she also added ‘I have never thought to choose Croatia for Holidays since in my mind this is the place where constant war takes place.’ Also interesting that in minds of several respondents Croatia associates with former Yugoslavia as well as Latvia with Russia.
Attributes derived by the free association technique (table 4) are little different than in word associations technique proclaiming scenery as the top one for both non visitors and visitors. Non visitors put ‘brand new destination’ on the second place in associations with Croatia while visitors give it only 19 th
position. Generally it is logical, if person has visited destination it ceases to brand new any more. The same can be said about
‘Obscured destination’ attribute. Then non visitors think that Croatia has intact tourism objects while visitors disagree with it. Absolute agreement of both sides is with the fact that Croatia is not a cheap country.
Percentage of ‘’Yes’’ answers
8.92
7.68
7.03
6.73
6.44
6.32
5.85
5.73
5.43
5.32
4.55
4.19
Non visitors
Image attributes
Scenery
Mountains
Sea
Intact tourism objects
1:1
7.91 Brand new destination 2:19
3:2
4:5
5:13
Cities 6:4
Climate/weather 7:10
Resorts & beaches
Plenty to do and see
8:7
9:3
Image attributes
Scenery
Table 4
Brand associations of Croatia
Visitors
Mountains
Plenty to do and see
Cities
Sea
Friendly people
Resorts & beaches
Architecture
Food and drink
Percentage of ‘’Yes’’ answers
7.31
7.20
7.20
7.10
6.88
6.67
6.02
5.81
5.48
Architecture 10:8 Climate/weather
Obscured destination 11:18 Fascinating culture
5.27
4.95
Friendly people 12:6 High Ecology 4.84
Fascinating culture 13:11 Intact tourism objects 4.62
4.13
3.60
3.01
2.07
Food and drink 14:9 War
High Ecology 15:12 High service
3.66
3.55
Soccer and basketball 16:17 Similar to Italy 3.12
War 17:14 Soccer and basketball 3.01

1.83
1.71
1.54
Similar to Italy 18:16 Obscured destination 2.69
High service 19:15 Brand new destination 2.69
Cheap country 20:20 Cheap country 1.94
Many attributes and their position of free association technique are similar to those from unstructured method of word association used earlier. This shows that both techniques are complementing each other to find brand image for a place. Both techniques prove that natural resources (scenery, climate, mountains, sea sun) are the main assets of Croatian tourism and non visitors have tendency to have more ‘common’ image attributes while visitors more often mention ‘unique’ attributes such as Dubrovnik, Krk island or Plitvice.
General conclusion is that in minds of Latvians Croatia is not quite unique destination as compared to Egypt with its pyramids since mountains, sea, scenery and sand can be found in rival destinations. Opposing this, one might say that uniqueness of Croatia emerges from the set of attributes. This can go under one phrase – ‘unique nature’ which for critical mass of customers overweighs existence of such unique places like Plitvice, Split, Dubrovnik,
Trogir or Krk island.
4.2 Destination choice factors
Second open ended question of the three main factors that led or would lead to the choice of Croatia as a destination scored little less responses - 550 in total and 373 of non visitors and 177 of visitors accordingly. Smaller activity to answer the second question might be explained by the second position since respondents, especially, non visitors exhausted their imagination with the first one. Results derived from the survey and presented in table 5 indicate much lower correlation in answers of non visitors and visitors than it was with the word associations. Both respondent groups admitted scenery and nature as their main destination choice factor. Also sea and beach, climate and value for money are attributes of top 5. The answers are divided into ‘push’ and ‘pull’ attributes. As for ‘push’ attributes the fact that Croatia is obscured, new and distant destination is proved of great importance in minds of proximally 9% of both respondent groups. In this case customer choice is based on acknowledged fact that there is brand new destination emerging and it offers to satisfy their need for novelty, as one respondent said: ‘every country I have not yet visited seems very exciting to me’. Also word-of-mouth is important ‘push’ factor especially for visitor’s category.
For example a non visitor lady in qualitative phase admitted being inspired to visit by pictures of her friend who has been to Croatia.

Non visitors (n=181)
Percentage of responses
Destination choice factors
Table 5
Place choice factors for Croatia
Visitors (n=72)
Percentage of responses
Destination choice factors
20.38 Scenery/nature
1:1
Scenery/nature 19.77
12.87 Holiday/Leisure spot
2:7
Sea/Beach 13.56
7.24 Sea/Beach
3:2
Weather/climate 10.73
6.70 Value for money
4:4
Value for money 10.17
6.17 Weather/climate
5:3
Culture and history 9.04
6.17 Culture and history
6:5
Mountains 3.95
4.02 Mountains
7:6
Holiday/Leisure spot 3.95
3.75 Outdoor activities
8:14
People and their life 3.39
3.49 People and their life
9:8
Variety of things to see 2.82
3.49 Architecture
10:11
Cities 2.82
4.83 Variety of things to see
11:9
12:17
Architecture 1.13
2.68 Plenty of entertainment Local cuisine 0.56
1.34 Cities
13:10
Watching sport games 0.56
1.34 Local cuisine
14:12
Outdoor activities 0.00
1.61 Shopping
15:15
Shopping 0.00
0.54 High Service
16:16
High Service 0.00
8.85
0.54 Watching sport games
Obscured, new, distant destination
17:13
1:1
Plenty of entertainment
Obscured, new, distant destination
0.00
9.04
2.95 Word-of-mouth
2:2
Word-of-mouth 6.21
1.07 Commercial information
3:3
Commercial information 1.13
0.00 Non commercial information
4:4
Non commercial information 1.13
The largest correlation between choice factors can be seen in ‘holiday/leisure spot’ as very important attribute for non visitors and less important for visitors. Similar discrepancy is with ‘outdoor activities’ and ‘word-of-mouth’ attributes.
4.3 Differentiating attributes
There were 20 attributes selected from the qualitative phase to be used for next stage of free association technique which purpose was to derive differentiating attributes of the destination. Scenery and nature are the top two attributes of both non visitors and visitors (table 6).
Here one can see the same tendency as with brand associations, non visitors tend to have more ‘common’ image attributes while visitors more often mention ‘unique’ attributes. For example Plitvice lakes as ‘unique’ attribute

are on the 3 rd place in minds of visitors. Unique city of Dubrovnik on the other hand is very little known by non visitors (table 6).
Non visitors
Differentiating attributes
Table 6
Differentiating factors for Croatia as a brand
Visitors
Percentage of ‘’Yes’’ answers
8,84 Scenery
7,87 Nature
7,75 Mountains
1:1
2:2
3:5
Differentiating attributes Percentage of ‘’Yes’’ answers
Scenery
Nature
Lakes of Plitvice
6,67
6,47
6,47
6,84 Climate/weather
6,12 Sea
6,12 Culture and history
5,39 Architecture
5,88 Cities
5,15 Lakes of Plitvice
4,66 National parks
4,24 Mix of Slavic and Latin
4:12 National parks
5:8 Mountains
6:7 Cities
7:11 Culture and history
8:6 Sea
9:3 Dubrovnik
10:4 Friendly people
11:20 Architecture
4,18 Beaches
4,12 Cuisine
4,06 Ecology
3,82 Value for money
3,63 Dubrovnik
12:13 Climate/weather
13:14 Beaches
14:17 Cuisine
15:15 Value for money
16:9 Dalmatia
3,27 Friendly people
3,03 Nightlife
17:10
18:19
Ecology
Combination of attributes
2,79 Combination of attributes 19:18 Nightlife
2,24 Dalmatia 20:16 Mix of Slavic and Latin
4,90
4,80
4,61
4,61
4,41
3,92
3,63
2,94
2,45
6,37
5,78
5,59
5,39
5,39
5,29
5,29
5,00
Most important is that ‘scenery/nature’ attribute dominates almost all the image recourses in both non visitor and visitor levels. Only difference is in word associations where scenery/nature is on the fourth place and sea and mountains dominate the list.
As Prayag (2010) admits inconsistencies suggest that an attribute may contribute to form brand image but its ability to differentiate the brand vis-a` -vis visitors own competitive set for the brand may be limited. Therefore, positioning a brand using only image attributes can be misleading as these attributes may not necessarily establish meaningful differences for the brand in its competitive set (Prayag 2010).
5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Structured and unstructured techniques were used to identify destination brand choice, perceived brand image and brand differentiation. Full consistence and congruence between both researches was achieved even

though respondents were of different categories – non visitors and visitors.
‘Scenery and nature’ are the main attribute of Croatia’s brand choice, brand image and brand differentiation in minds of Latvians. This differs from
Croatian statistics that Latvian tourists prefer staying by the seaside. Only difference is found in word associations about Croatia where ‘sea & beach’,
‘mountains and weather’ are dominating leaving ‘scenery/nature’ on the 4 th place. It must also be underlined that Croatia in minds of Latvians is still new, obscured and unvisited destination, which is very important ‘push’ attribute to influence the consumer choice.
Research with some exceptions proved that Latvians have clear and positive image of Croatia. Destination brand of Croatia is mainly polycentric as there is no attribute with extensive handicap over others instead the brand is built upon larger set of attributes. This framework of attributes of Croatia might form the unique selling proposition in minds of Latvian customers. This conclusion however must be proven through different research.
Croatian destination marketers are suggested to promote ‘unique’ attributes like Plitvice, Dubrovnik or Krk because not all attributes associated with a brand are effective at creating unique selling proposition.
REFERENCES
Ballantyne, R., Warren, A. and Nobbs, K. (2006): The evolution of brand choice , Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 13 Nos 4/5, pp. 339-52.
Baldagira, T. (2010): Guide book through the lectures about Croatia :
University of Rijeka. pp. 63
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999): U.S. international pleasure travellers' images of four Mediterranean destinations: A comparison of visitors and nonvisitors.
Journal of Travel Research, 38(2), 144-152.
Baloglu, S. and Mangaloglu, M. (2001): Tourism destination images of
Turkey, Egypt, Greece and Italy as perceived by US-based tour operators and travel agents , Tourism Management, Vol. 22, pp. 1-9.
Bargeman, B. and van der Poel, H. (2006): The role of routines in the vacation decision-making process of Dutch vacationers , Tourism
Management, Vol. 27, pp. 707-20.

Blain, C., Levy, S.E. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2005): Destination branding: insights and practices from destination management organizations , Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, pp. 328-38. de Chernatony, L. and F. Dall'Olmo Riley (1998): Defining "brand": beyond the literature with experts' interpretations , Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol.14, No.5, pp.417-443.
Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990): In Search of Brand Image: A
Foundation Analysis.
Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 110-119.
Beerli, A. and Martin, J.D. (2004): Factors influencing destination image ,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 657-81.
Gartner, W.C. (1993): Image formation process , Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 191-215.
Goodrich, J. N. (1978): The Relationship between preferences for and perceptions of vacation destination . Journal of Travel Research, 17(2), 8-13.
Gunn, C.A. (1997): Vacationscape: Developing Tourist Areas , 2nd ed.,
Taylor & Francis, Washington, DC,.
Howard, J.A. (1963): Marketing Management: Analysis and Planning ,
Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Echtner, C.M. and Ritchie, J.B.R. (1991): The meaning and measurement of destination image , Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 2-12.
Echtner, C.M. and Ritchie, J.B.R. (1993): The measurement of destination image: an empirical assessment , Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 3-13.
Ephron, E. (1996): Brand-centric brain washing , Advertising Age, Vol. 67
No. 38, p. 27.
Fakeye, P. C , & Crompton, J. L. (1991): Image Differences Between
Prospective, First-Time, and Repeat Visitors to the Lower Rio Grande
Valley . Journal of Travel Research, 30 (Fall), 10-16.

Konecnik, M. (2002): The Image as a possible Source of competitive
Advantage of the Destination - The Case of Slovenia’’ Tourism Review, Vol
57, No 1 + 2/2002
Keller, K.L. (1993): Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customerbased brand equity , Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 1-22.
Kotler, P. (1991): Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation, and control . Prentice-Hall (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.). 7th edition
Kotler, P., & Haider, H. D., & Rein, I. (1993): Marketing Places : Attracting
Investment, Industry, and Tourism to Cities, States, and Nations . New
York: The Free Press.
Low, G. & Lamb, C., (2000): The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations . Journal of Product and Brand Management. 9(6), 350-
368.
Martinez, E. and de Chernatony, L. (2004): The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image , Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 No.
1, pp. 39-50.
MacInnis, D.J. & L.L. Price (1987): The role of Imagery in Information
Processing: Review and Extensions . Journal of Consumer Research, 13:473-
491
Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. (1998): Tourism Promotion and Power:
Creating Images, Creating Identities , Wiley, Chichester.
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, R. (2002): New Zealand, 100% pure: the creation of apowerful niche destination brand , Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 9, pp. 335-54.
Nicolau, J.L. and Mas, F.J. (2006), The influence of distance and prices on the choice of tourist destinations: the moderating role of motivations ,
Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 982-96.
Park A. (2009):
Selling’ a small state to the world: Lithuania’s struggle in building its national image , Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 5, 67-84.

Prayag G. (2010): Brand image assessment: international visitors’ perceptions of Cape Town , Marketing Intelligence & Planning Vol. 28 No.
4, pp. 462-485
Prebensen, N.K. (2007):
Exploring tourists’ images of a distant destination
,
Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 747-56.
Seddighi, H.R., Nuttall, M.W. and Theocharous, A.L. (2001): Does cultural background of tourists influence the destination choice? An empirical study with special reference to political instability , Tourism Management,
Vol. 22, pp. 181-91.
Sleight, P. (1993): Targeting Customers: How to Use Geodemographics and
Lifestyle Data in Your Business , NTC Publications, Henley-on-Thames.
Tasci, A.D.A. and Gartner, W.C. (2007): Destination image and its functional relationships , Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45, pp. 413-25.
Trout, J. and Ries, A. (1979): Positioning: ten years later, Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 7, pp. 32-42.
Trueman, M., Klemm, M., Giroud, A. (2004): Can a city communicate?
Bradford as a corporate brand, Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 317-330