Journal of Travel Research
http://jtr.sagepub.com
Using Brand Personality to Differentiate Regional Tourism Destinations
Laurie Murphy, Gianna Moscardo and Pierre Benckendorff
Journal of Travel Research 2007; 46; 5
DOI: 10.1177/0047287507302371
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/46/1/5
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Travel and Tourism Research Association
Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/46/1/5
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 31, 2008
Using Brand Personality to Differentiate
Regional Tourism Destinations
LAURIE MURPHY, GIANNA MOSCARDO, AND PIERRE BENCKENDORFF
Destination branding is growing rapidly as an approach
to tourism destination promotion. While this concept has
been borrowed from the world of general consumer goods
and applied in a number of national tourism destinations,
academic analysis of the value and effectiveness of destination branding has emerged more slowly. The present article
addresses this paucity of academic scrutiny by examining
the value of the destination brand personality construct in
distinguishing between two regional tourism destinations. A
survey of 480 tourists was conducted adjacent to the Great
Barrier Reef in Northern Australia to gather data about the
destination image attributes of two regional destinations
that were branded by a state destination marketing organization. The results indicated that tourists were able to articulate different destination brand personalities for each
region. The results also indicated that more work might need
to be done to adapt existing frameworks of brand personality to the tourism context.
Keywords: Destination branding; image; personality;
self-congruence
INTRODUCTION
While some tourism academics have criticized the
wisdom of adopting concepts and frameworks directly from
other study or disciplinary areas (Aramberri 2001), tourism
practitioners often borrow and use ideas with little regard to
academic debates. The development of destination branding
is one example of this practice. Several authors have
published descriptions of specific destination branding
processes and have made a number of claims about the value
of the branding concept for improving tourism destination
marketing (Morgan and Pritchard 2002; Morgan, Pritchard,
and Piggott 2003). Their arguments are based on the
assumption that a strong brand can have a positive differential marketing effect because it attracts more favourable
attribute and benefit perceptions and overall preference; can
attract greater price premiums; and can result in consumers
paying greater attention to communications, retaining more
information from them and reacting in a more positive way
(Hoeffler and Keller 2003). This article reports on a study
that seeks to outline and test some of the assumptions and
claims made in adopting branding from the world of consumer goods to travel destinations.
Destination Brands
Brands are traditionally associated with consumer goods,
but promoters of destinations are increasingly adopting the
technique (Henderson 2000). Hankinson (2001) argues that
creating brands as defined and discussed in the traditional
marketing literature is a more difficult and complex process
when considering destinations and locations. Morgan,
Pritchard, and Pride (2002) acknowledge the challenges
faced by destination marketers given limited budgets, lack of
overall product control, and political pressures and claim that
the creation of brand saliency—the development of an emotional relationship with the consumer through highly choreographed and focused communication campaigns—holds the
key to destination differentiation.
A destination brand can be defined as “perceptions about
a place as reflected by the associations held in tourist
memory” (Cai 2002, p. 273). Such a concept serves to
enhance destination marketing by providing potential
tourists with pretrip information that allows them to identify
a destination, differentiate it from its competitors, and build
expectations about the likely holiday experience offered by
Laurie Murphy is a senior lecturer in the School of Business at
James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. Her current
research interests include destination branding and marketing particularly at a regional level, and tourist shopping villages. She has
also published research on the backpacker travel market.
Dr. Murphy teaches in the areas of tourism marketing and
research. Gianna Moscardo has been a member of the academic
staff of the School of Business at James Cook University since
February 2002. She was previously a principal research fellow and
project leader in tourism research in the Cooperative Research
Centres for Reef and Rainforest for eight years managing a series
of research and extension activities aimed at enhancing the sustainability of tourism activities in Northern Australia. She was
recently elected to the World Tourism Organization’s International
Academy for the Study of Tourism Scholars. Dr. Pierre
Benckendorff has been at James Cook University since 1995, first
as a student and then as an academic staff member from 2001. He
is a recipient of a James Cook University Medal for academic
excellence and the recipient of a number of teaching awards. His
current research interests include visitor attraction management,
urban and built tourism settings, entertainment, tourism technologies, marketing, and tertiary tourism education; and he has
authored or co-authored a number of academic articles in these
areas. Dr. Benckendorff teaches in the areas of business communication, international tourism, transport, and technology.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46, August 2007, 5–14
DOI: 10.1177/0047287507302371
© 2007 Sage Publications
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 31, 2008
6 AUGUST 2007
the destination. Furthermore, a destination brand can assist
tourists in consolidating and reinforcing their perceptions of
the destination after their travel experience (Ritchie and
Ritchie 1998). Building a destination brand image essentially means identifying the most relevant associations for
the destination and strengthening their linkages to the destination brand (Keller 1993).
Cai (2002) argues that this is achieved by the development of a slogan or logo—an element that serves as a trademark—as an anchor for the formation of strong and
consistent associations with the destination brand. The next
steps in the creation of a durable destination brand are the
identification of the brand’s values and the association of
these values with an appealing personality (Morgan,
Pritchard, and Pride 2002). Morgan, Pritchard, and Pride
(2002) suggest that brand identity is central to the direction,
purpose, and meaning of a brand and argue that an effective
brand makes connections to functional, emotional, or selfexpressive benefits of importance to the consumer.
Ekinci (2003) provides a model or framework for destination branding that incorporates many of these arguments (see
Figure 1). In this model the destination image is made up of
three components: the overall image, the destination brand
and, within the destination brand, brand personality. The destination image is then linked to the tourist’s self-image. This
connection between self-image and destination image is consistent with arguments that lifestyle and value systems are key
elements in destination choice processes (Ekinci 2003). It has
been proposed that consumer decisions are often based on
whether or not a product fits into their lifestyle and/or whether
it offers a desirable experience (Morgan, Pritchard, and Pride
2002). Such arguments have also been made with respect to
destination marketing. In particular, it is suggested that travel
is increasingly about experiences, fulfilment, and rejuvenation rather than about “places and things” (King 2002). King
states that travel and tourism marketers need to focus on and
confirm more of what the customer would like to see in and
of themselves and their lifestyles, rather than on the tangible
properties of the product or service being promoted. This
means that destination marketing organizations need to place
more emphasis on the creation and promotion of holiday
experiences that link key brand values and assets to the holiday aspirations and needs of customers as set out in the Ekinci
model (King 2002).
This link between tourists and destination brands has
also been explored in terms of links between self-concept
FIGURE 1
DESTINATION IMAGE AND DESTINATION BRANDING
(EKINCI, 2003)
and travel behavior by Sirgy and Su (2000) in their discussions of self-image congruence or self-congruity. The concept of self-congruity refers to the outcome of a process of
matching a tourist’s self-concept to their image of the destination (Sirgy and Su 2000). In Sirgy and Su’s (2000)
description of self-congruity, a consumer’s attitude toward a
product (and product purchase) is influenced by how well
the product image matches with the consumer’s self-concept. In the case of tourism, the greater the match between
the image a tourist has of a destination, and their self-concept, the more likely it is that the tourist will have a favorable attitude toward that destination resulting in a visit. A
clear and effective destination brand is seen as a key element
in the development of this self-congruity (Morgan,
Pritchard, and Pride 2002).
Destination Brand Personality
Brand personality is often presented as a key component
of an effective brand and it is central to the destination
branding model presented in Figure 1. In Ekinci’s (2003)
model a core link between destination image and consumer
self-image is the brand personality concept (i.e. self congruity). This claim is based on arguments made in the consumer goods world where it has been suggested that when
product attributes are very similar for competing brands,
brand personality may create a basis for differentiation,
claiming that a strong positive brand personality should lead
to relatively higher product evaluations in comparison to
claims that merely inform consumers about the product’s
features and benefits (Haigood 1999). According to
D. Aaker (1996) brand personality provides a connection
between the brand’s emotional and self-expressive benefits
and forms the basis for customer–brand relationships. In this
argument, brand equity is created when consumers agree
that the brand has a personality, that it is interesting, and that
they have a clear image of the type of person who would use
the brand (D. Aaker 1996).
Personality traits come to be associated with the brand in
several ways. First, personality can be directly manifested in
the brand’s user imagery, or the set of human characteristics
associated with the typical user of a brand. It can also be
seen as associated with perceptions of the company’s
employees and/or the brand’s product endorsers. In this way,
the personality traits of the people associated with the brand
are transferred directly to the brand. Personality can also be
associated with brands in an indirect way through productrelated attributes, product category associations, brand
name, symbol or logo, advertising style, price, and distribution channel. One of the most common frameworks used to
understand the nature of brand personality is that of J. Aaker
(1997). This framework is based on research identifying
five core dimensions of brand personality: sincerity,
excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness,
which in turn are comprised of 42 individual “personality
traits” (J. Aaker 1997).
Evaluating Brand Personality
In most published accounts of the destination branding
process, desired brand personality characteristics are identified.
For example, Henderson (2000) discusses the New
Asia–Singapore branding process and identifies six personality
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 31, 2008
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 7
characteristics comprising the brand: cosmopolitan, youthful,
vibrant, modern Asia, reliability, and comfort. However, postlaunch evaluative research with residents and visitors suggested
that there was limited awareness of the brand and its personality as envisaged by the creators, with little mention of several
important brand characteristics and values.
Back and Lee’s (2003) application of J. Aaker’s (1997)
framework provides some support for at least four of
the dimensions—sincerity, excitement, competence, and
sophistication. Hosany and Ekinci (2003) also tested the validity of J. Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale to assess its
applicability to tourism destinations. Their results showed that
the five dimensions of brand personality were not replicated.
They found three valid personality dimensions: competence,
extroversion, and excitement. However, they do not report
what or how many tourism destinations were evaluated and
therefore cannot provide evidence of whether respondents can
differentiate destinations based on the destinations’ personalities. They conclude that the positioning of a destination can be
translated into its rational benefits (cognitive images), and, at a
deeper level, emotional benefits (affective images). Finally,
these brand attributes should culminate in the destination’s
brand personality, exemplified by traits such as down-to-earth,
charming, spirited, exciting, and wholesome. Despite this
growing body of literature on destination branding, there is
little empirical evidence that visitors can and do associate
brand personality characteristics with destinations, and that
they can differentiate destinations on the basis of perceived
personality and brand identity. Neither have the links between
brand personality and self-concept been explored. Given that
“branding” in its true sense entails more than logos and slogans, and must, as alluded to earlier, address the notions of values, personality, and emotive links, the debate on destination
branding can only advance if further analysis of these key concepts and their applicability to “places” occurs.
Research Aims
The overall purpose of this study is to explore the brand
identity of two popular coastal and reef tourism destinations
in Queensland, Australia—Cairns (Tropical North
Queensland) and the Whitsunday Islands—as perceived by
visitors to the North Queensland region. Both of these destinations have been branded by Tourism Queensland, the
state destination marketing organization (DMO). The Cairns
branding position is “Where Rainforest Meets Reef” and the
Whitsundays is “Out of the Blue.” Given the similarity of
these two destinations on attribute-based characteristics, this
study explores new ground with the application of J. Aaker’s
personality dimensions to tourism destinations and tests
many of the underlying, yet unchallenged, assumptions
about destination branding.
Specifically, the aims of this study were to determine:
• whether respondents could associate brand personality characteristics with the two destinations;
• whether respondents could differentiate the two
tourism destinations on the basis of brand personality
perceptions; and
• if differences in destination brand personality
perceptions existed, whether this corresponded with
differences in perceptions of self-congruity with the
destinations.
The Setting
Approximately 85% of tourist activity on the Great
Barrier Reef occurs in the Cairns and Whitsundays areas of
the Marine Park. Cairns received 2.2 million visitors in
2003, comprised of 41% intrastate, 34% international, and
25% interstate visitors. Visitation to the Cairns region has
increased at an average annual rate of 0.6% for domestic
tourists and decreased by 1% for international tourists since
2000 (Tourism Queensland 2004c). The Whitsunday region
received 687,155 visitors in 2003, comprised of 43%
intrastate, 29% interstate, and 28% international visitors.
Visitation to the Whitsundays region has increased at an
average annual rate of 16.4% for domestic tourists and
decreased by 1% for international tourists since 2000
(Tourism Queensland 2004d). Domestic holiday tracking
studies have shown that 47% of respondents recalled having
seen, read, or heard advertising for Tropical North
Queensland, 14% would like to spend a holiday there in the
next 2 years, and 3% had spent at least one night in the
region in the past 12 months (Tourism Queensland, 2004a).
Corresponding advertising awareness levels for the
Whitsundays were 35%, with 16% of respondents stating
they would like to spend a holiday in the region in the next
2 years and 1% having spent at least one night there in the
past 12 months (Tourism Queensland, 2004b). These figures
suggest that the two destinations under study are popular
and have achieved marketing exposure. It is important to
examine the ability of destination branding, and, in particular, brand personality, to differentiate these two destinations
in the minds of travelers, given their geographic proximity
and similar destination attributes.
METHODOLOGY
The study involved a survey of tourists conducted in the
North Queensland Tourism Region, which is located
between the Cairns (Tropical North Queensland) region and
Whitsunday region and acts as a transport corridor for visitors moving along the Queensland coast. The survey method
exploited these transport corridors by locating survey interviewers at a number of transport nodes including a ferry
responsible for transporting international and domestic visitors to a popular day trip attraction, Magnetic Island.
Surveys were also conducted at a popular tourist café and
stopping point located on the main highway linking Cairns
and the Whitsundays. Many international and domestic visitors to the two target destination regions travel along this
highway. This approach also allowed for residents of the
North Queensland region to be surveyed, an important local
market for both destinations under study. The various survey
locations provided an opportunity to access a mix of visitors
who had visited one, both, or neither of the destinations.
A total of 480 surveys were collected, with a response
rate of 62%. Of the surveys collected, 464 were usable.
Three versions of the questionnaire were distributed, with
90 respondents completing a long version that included
branding questions for both destinations, 187 respondents
completing a version relating only to the Whitsundays, and
187 completing a Cairns-only version. This study will
explore in detail the ability to differentiate destinations on
the basis of brand personality and will directly compare the
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 31, 2008
8 AUGUST 2007
results from the 90 respondents presented with the forced
comparison (Cairns vs. Whitsundays) to those from the
two separate groups of respondents who were presented
with only one destination (Cairns or Whitsundays). The
inclusion of two destinations also provided the opportunity
to determine the extent to which the ability to answer to
the brand personality questions was a reflection of the questions themselves as opposed to perceived differences in
destinations.
The questionnaire incorporated a number of sections
designed to collect data on various aspects of the concept of
destination brands and brand personality. In one component,
respondents were asked to describe their image of each
region using three words or phrases (cognitive image), their
impressions of how a holiday at the destination would make
them feel (affective image), and a typical visitor to the destination (linking typical user to brand personality). In a second component, respondents were also asked to indicate on
a 1 to 5 scale how strongly they associated with the destination 5 brand dimensions and 15 corresponding brand facets
identified in J. Aaker’s (1997) brand personality framework.
The option to state they were not sure was given to provide
an indication of whether there were certain personality characteristics that respondents found more difficult to associate
with tourism destinations. The entire J. Aaker’s list of 42
personality traits was not adopted because of the risk of
respondent fatigue, given the overall scope of the survey.
A third key component of the questionnaire explored the
link between destination brands and self-image/identity,
using Sirgy and Su’s (2000) proposed measures of self-congruity. In these measures respondents are asked to indicate
their level of agreement with the following statements—A
Cairns/Whitsundays holiday is consistent with: how I see
myself; how I would like to see myself; how I believe others
see me; how I would like others see me. Finally, the questionnaire also collected data on previous visitation and
future travel intentions to the destinations; information
sources used in holiday decision making; and age, gender,
and place of residence.
RESULTS
Profile of Respondents
There were slightly more female (56%) than male (44%)
respondents to the survey, and their average age was 38
years. The majority of respondents were Australian (70.5%),
of whom 69.5% were from the North Queensland Region
with a further 11.8% from the rest of Queensland. Of the
29.5% of respondents from overseas, 43.9% were from the
United Kingdom and 15.2% from the United States.
Three-quarters of the sample had previously visited
Cairns, with 63.8% having visited the Whitsundays. On
average, these respondents had visited Cairns five times
before and the Whitsundays twice before. More than half of
the respondents were planning to visit Cairns in the near
future and 46.5% were planning to visit the Whitsundays
(Table 1).
Importantly, average satisfaction on the most recent previous trip was 8.71 out of 10 for the Whitsundays and 7.65
out of 10 for Cairns. T-tests revealed that satisfaction with
Cairns was significantly lower when compared to the
Whitsundays, particularly for respondents who rated both
destinations in the same survey (7.51 vs. 8.69), but also for
those who rated them independently (Cairns ⫽ 8.18,
Whitsundays ⫽ 8.79).
Analysis of Whether Respondents Could
Associate Brand Personality Characteristics
with the Two Destinations
Respondents were asked three open-ended questions
regarding their image of the destination(s) (cognitive
image), how they thought a holiday at the destination(s)
would make them feel (affective image), and their image of
a typical visitor (brand personality). It is important to note
that no statistical tests could be conducted because the questions were coded in a multiple-response format, and some
respondents provided responses for both destinations and
therefore could appear in more than one cell in the tables
presented in the following section.
There were only four common descriptors in the top 10
responses for each destination when respondents were asked
to provide 3 words that best described their image: touristy/
commercial/developed, beautiful/stunning, fun and tropical
(Table 2). However, substantially more respondents
described the Whitsundays as beautiful/stunning (35.7% vs.
7.5%) and Cairns as touristy/commercial/developed (37.5%
vs. 10.6%). Relaxing/peaceful, natural, and sunny were
unique to the top 10 descriptors for the Whitsundays, with
hot/warm/humid, busy/crowded, and friendly unique to
Cairns.
Five common descriptors were found in the top 10
responses for “how a holiday at . . . would make me feel,”
with relaxed and happy the most common responses for both
destinations (Table 3). The main points of differentiation
were that 16.9% of respondents indicated that Cairns would
make them feel busy/tired/stressed, while the Whitsundays
was more likely to make respondents feel rested/rejuvenated
(32.8% vs. 10.3%).
A mixture of personality and other descriptors were used
by respondents to describe a typical visitor to the destinations, and only 3 of the top 10 descriptors were not common
to both destinations (Table 4). Backpacker and young were
the two most common descriptors of a typical visitor to both
destinations. Unique to the top 10 descriptors of a visitor to
Cairns were Japanese/Asian, international/from overseas,
and active/energetic. Unique to the Whitsundays was anyone/from all walks of life, families, and sexy.
J. Aaker’s five broad dimensions of brand personality
were tested using 20 statements from the brand personality
scale. The results indicate that at least 90% of respondents
rated Cairns on each of the descriptors, and at least 88%
rated the Whitsundays on each descriptor (Table 5). The
personality descriptors for which there was the highest
proportion of “not sure” or missing responses were sincere
and honest for Cairns; and sincere, reliable, intelligent,
competent, and honest for the Whitsundays.
Of J. Aaker (1997) personality descriptors, the ones most
strongly associated with the destinations were
cheerful (Whitsundays ⫽ 4.20, Cairns ⫽ 3.67), exciting
(Whitsundays ⫽ 4.10, Cairns ⫽ 3.67), and outdoorsy
(Whitsundays ⫽ 4.05, Cairns ⫽ 3.62). Weakest associations
occurred for tough (Whitsundays ⫽ 2.70, Cairns ⫽ 2.79),
and sincere (Whitsundays ⫽ 2.96, Cairns ⫽ 2.60).
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 31, 2008
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 9
TABLE 1
PREVIOUS TRAVEL EXPERIENCE WITH DESTINATIONS
Cairns (n ⫽ 276)
Whitsundays (n ⫽ 276)
Percentage who have visited previously
No. of previous visits (median)
Average length of most recent trip
Average Trip satisfaction
paired comparison (t ⫽ 4.484, p ⫽ .000)
independent (t ⫽ 2.290, p ⫽ .023)
74.6%
5
5.4 days
7.65 out of 10
7.51
8.18
63.8%
2
4.2 days
8.71 out of 10
8.69
8.79
Percentage who are planning to visit
58.0%
46.5%
Why not planning to visit
too far from home/don’t live in Australia
other places to see/things to do
too expensive/can’t afford
no time
have already been there
no particular reason
(n ⫽ 96)
13.8
22.0
8.3
8.3
1.8
10.1
(n ⫽ 129)
22.3
18.0
12.2
8.6
6.5
7.2
TABLE 2
RESPONDENTS IMAGES OF THE DESTINATIONS
Top 10 Words Describing
Cairns (n ⫽ 253)
Touristy/commercial/developed
Hot/warm/humid
Tropical
Busy/crowded
Friendly
Fun
Beautiful/stunning
Wet/rainy
Great Barrier Reef
Interesting/exciting
% of
Respondents
Top 10 Words Describing the
Whitsundays (n ⫽ 255)
37.5
22.1
20.6
13.4
7.9
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
Beautiful/stunning
Relaxing/peaceful
Fun
Natural
Sunny
Tropical
Touristy/commercial/developed
Scenic/picturesque
Sea/water
White sand
% of
Respondents
35.7
30.2
12.9
12.9
12.5
12.2
10.6
9.4
8.6
8.6
Note: Items in bold indicate descriptors unique to the destination.
Analysis of Whether Respondents Could
Differentiate Tourism Destinations on the Basis
of Brand Personality Perceptions
In an attempt to investigate whether J. Aaker’s brand personality dimensions differed between the two destinations,
the 20 brand personality statements were factor analyzed.
Only two factor analyses were conducted—one including all
the respondents who rated the Whitsundays (n ⫽ 124), and
one including all the respondents who rated Cairns
(n ⫽ 126). Given the “not sure” option provided to respondents on these questions, the resulting missing values
TABLE 3
RESPONDENTS PERCEPTIONS ABOUT HOW A HOLIDAY AT THE DESTINATION WOULD MAKE THEM FEEL
Top 10 Words for How a
Cairns Holiday Would
Make Me Feel (n ⫽ 213)
Relaxed
Happy
Busy/tired/stressed
Excited
Rejuvenated/refreshed
Broke/poor
Exhilarated
Bored
Satisfied
Fun
% of
Respondents
Top 10 Words for How a
Whitsundays Holiday Would
Make Me Feel (n ⫽ 232)
52.1
33.8
16.9
11.7
10.3
10.3
7.5
6.6
5.2
4.7
Relaxed
Happy
Rested/rejuvenated
Excited
Sunburnt/tanned
Peaceful
Broke/poor
Lucky
Calm/tranquil
Free
Note: Items in bold indicate descriptors unique to the destination.
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 31, 2008
% of
Respondents
76.3
42.7
32.8
8.2
7.3
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.2
5.2
10 AUGUST 2007
prevented the breakdown of respondents into further
categories (i.e., Whitsundays only vs. Cairns only).
The factor analysis of all the responses for the
Whitsundays produced a four-factor solution (Table 6 and
Figure 2). The first factor combines the sophistication and
competence dimensions. Upper-class was strongest, followed
by sophisticated, successful, intelligent, charming, reliable,
up-to-date, and competent. Factor 2, sincerity, is comprised of
honest, sincere, down-to-earth, and wholesome, but also outdoorsy. Factor 3, excitement, included the items exciting,
cheerful, spirited, and imaginative. Finally, Factor 4, ruggedness, was comprised of tough, rugged, and daring.
The results for all the Cairns responses were quite different
(see Table 7 and Figure 3). Only three factors were extracted:
sincerity ⫹ competence, sophistication, and excitement ⫹
ruggedness. Factor 1, sincerity ⫹ competence, was comprised
of the following items: sincere, honest, down-to-earth, wholesome, competent, reliable, and intelligent. Sophisticated,
up-to-date, successful, upper class, imaginative, and cheerful
were included on Factor 2, sophistication. Finally, Factor 3,
excitement ⫹ ruggedness, is comprised of outdoorsy, rugged,
daring, exciting, tough, spirited, and charming.
Independent t-tests for significant differences (comparing
those who rated Cairns only vs. those who rated Whitsundays
only) indicate that the Whitsundays was perceived to be significantly more wholesome (3.45 vs. 2.99), cheerful (4.22 vs.
3.81), exciting (4.09 vs. 3.80), imaginative (3.64 vs. 3.32),
and upper class (3.01 vs. 2.73). Many more significant differences were found when comparing the personality associations for the two destinations for respondents who completed
the combined survey (i.e., rated the two destinations side by
side). Paired t-tests revealed that these respondents were significantly more likely to perceive the Whitsundays as sincere,
down-to-earth, honest, wholesome, cheerful, exciting, spirited, imaginative, competent, reliable, intelligent, successful,
charming, rugged, outdoorsy, and tough (see Table 8).
TABLE 4
RESPONDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF A TYPICAL VISITOR TO THE DESTINATION
Top 10 Words Describing
a Typical Visitor to Cairns
(n ⫽ 239)
% of
Respondents
Backpacker
Young
Japanese/Asian
Sporty/athletic
Rich
Stylish/classy
International/from overseas
Fun-loving
Adventurous
Active/energetic
Top 10 Words Describing
a Typical Visitor to the
Whitsundays (n ⫽ 239)
29.3
16.7
16.7
13.4
12.1
10.9
10.5
8.4
5.9
5.4
Backpacker
Young
Stylish/classy
Adventurous
Rich
Sporty/athletic
Anyone/from all walks of life
Fun-loving
Families
Sexy
% of
Respondents
31.0
22.2
15.9
12.6
12.1
12.1
8.8
8.4
6.7
6.3
Note: Items in bold indicate descriptors unique to the destination.
TABLE 5
RESPONDENTS BRAND PERSONALITY RATINGS FOR EACH DESTINATION
Brand Personality Facet
1 ⫽ not at all, 5 ⫽ strongly
Sincere
Down to Earth
Honest
Wholesome
Cheerful
Exciting
Daring
Spirited
Imaginative
Up to date
Competent
Reliable
Intelligent
Successful
Sophisticated
Upper class
Charming
Rugged
Outdoorsy
Tough
Cairns Mean
% Not Sure
Whitsundays Mean
% Not Sure
2.60
3.03
2.88
2.94
3.67
3.67
3.34
3.43
3.24
3.51
3.33
3.23
3.05
3.46
3.12
2.82
3.01
2.88
3.62
2.79
9.7
4.7
7.8
6.3
2.8
2.2
4.1
4.3
4.1
5.6
6.7
6.9
6.9
4.7
4.3
4.5
4.3
5.6
2.8
5.6
2.96
3.36
3.18
3.53
4.20
4.10
3.44
3.73
3.65
3.69
3.67
3.56
3.18
3.73
3.25
3.12
3.58
3.12
4.05
2.70
12.3
5.4
9.5
7.8
3.9
3.9
6.5
4.7
4.3
8.0
11.0
11.9
11.2
7.5
6.3
4.5
5.2
6.5
5.0
5.8
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 31, 2008
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 11
TABLE 6
FACTOR ANALYSIS OF BRAND PERSONALITY DESCRIPTORS FOR THE WHITSUNDAYS (n⫽ 124)
Brand Personality
Facets
Factor 1
Sophistication ⫹
competence
Factor 2
Sincerity
Upper class
Sophisticated
Successful
Intelligent
Charming
Reliable
Up to date
Competent
.814
.813
.699
.687
.661
.585
.576
.521
.012
.143
.420
.490
.438
.521
.382
.455
.102
.244
.217
.130
.139
.291
.511
.463
.233
.193
.078
.243
.091
⫺ .036
⫺ .011
⫺ .096
Honest
Sincere
Down to earth
Wholesome
Outdoorsy
.275
.361
.097
.201
.222
.818
.756
.754
.722
.504
.194
.069
.351
.404
.373
.156
.217
.159
.094
.216
Exciting
Cheerful
Spirited
Imaginative
.190
.183
.148
.373
.141
.369
.302
.226
.813
.747
.674
.607
.124
⫺.070
.397
.335
Tough
Rugged
Daring
.094
.471
.073
.150
.142
.156
.061
.128
.573
.797
.625
.611
Eigen values
% Variance (71.1%)
10.00
50.0
FIGURE 2
BRAND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS FOR THE
WHITSUNDAYS REGION
1.68
8.4
Factor 3
Excitement
1.46
7.3
Factor 4
Ruggedness
1.09
5.4
Analysis of Whether Differences in Destination
Brand Personality Perceptions Correspond with
Differences in Perceptions of Self-Congruity
with the Destinations
Respondents who compared both destinations (paired
t-test) were significantly more likely to agree that a
Whitsundays holiday is consistent with how they see
themselves (2.81 vs. 3.63 on a scale where 1 ⫽ strongly
agree to 5 ⫽ strongly disagree), how they would like to see
themselves (2.67 vs. 3.71), how they believe others see them
(3.16 vs. 3.72) and how they would like others to see them
(3.10 vs. 3.99) (Table 9).
Similar findings exist when comparing those who rated
only the Whitsundays to those who rated only Cairns (independent t-test). There was significantly stronger agreement
that a Whitsundays holiday is “consistent with how I see
myself,” “how I would like to see myself,” and “how I would
like others to see me (Table 10).”
Given the relatively high levels of previous visitation to
the two destinations, t-tests were also conducted to determine if there were any significant differences in brand personality ratings for those who had been to the destination
versus those who had not. The results indicated the there
were no significant differences between visitors and nonvisitors to the Whitsundays. However, those who had previously visited Cairns perceived it to be less exciting (3.56 vs.
4.08), daring (3.20 vs. 3.93), imaginative (3.61 vs. 3.14),
rugged (3.32 vs. 2.78), and outdoorsy (3.96 vs. 3.55), than
did those who had not yet visited.
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
The results provide a number of useful insights into the
application of brand personality to tourism destinations.
First, while the majority of respondents were able to rate the
destinations using most of J. Aaker’s personality descriptors,
the open-ended responses indicate that personality descriptors were not as common as more attribute-based descriptors
when free-elicitation of destination perceptions occurs. The
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 31, 2008
12 AUGUST 2007
TABLE 7
FACTOR ANALYSIS OF BRAND PERSONALITY DESCRIPTORS FOR CAIRNS (n ⫽ 126)
Brand Personality
Facets
Factor 1
Sincerity ⫹
Competence
Factor 2
Sophistication
Factor 3
Excitement ⫹
Ruggedness
Sincere
Honest
Down to Earth
Wholesome
Competent
Reliable
Intelligent
.828
.810
.787
.763
.712
.688
.594
.251
.269
.094
.284
.499
.521
.579
.226
.277
.381
.300
.109
.198
.198
Sophisticated
Up to date
Successful
Upper class
Imaginative
Cheerful
.307
.301
.309
.126
.443
.297
.768
.756
.704
.685
.594
.548
.189
.179
.292
.170
.354
.458
Outdoorsy
Rugged
Daring
Exciting
Tough
Spirited
Charming
.238
.387
.198
.032
.430
.230
.394
.066
.211
.430
.501
.176
.559
.486
.757
.668
.660
.641
.636
.621
.494
Eigen values
% Variance (69.6%)
11.16
55.8
FIGURE 3
BRAND PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS FOR THE CAIRNS
REGION
destination image descriptors provided were all attributebased, with the exception of friendly, fun, exciting, and
relaxing. The most common affective images were relaxed,
happy, rested, and excited. Even when describing a typical
visitor nonpersonality descriptors were more common (e.g.,
backpacker, young). The most common personality-based
descriptors were sporty, classy, fun-loving, and adventurous.
The factor analyses revealed that the brand personalty
dimensions were not consistent between the two destinations. Along with the multiple loadings for some items in
1.50
7.5
1.25
6.3
the factor analysis (e.g., reliable, up-to-date) and higher
nonresponse for some brand personality descriptors (e.g.,
competent, reliable, intelligent, and honest), this result suggests that further analysis and research is needed to develop
a more robust tourism-specific destination brand personality
model that incorporates the more common personality
descriptors as identified in the free-elicitation questions.
However, the results provide some evidence that respondents were able to differentiate between the two destinations
on the basis of brand personality with some key differences
in the open-ended responses and significant differences in
the personality ratings for the two destinations.
An additional important finding is that there was greater
differentiation between the destinations when they were
compared jointly as opposed to independently. This has
both practical and theoretical implications. From a research
viewpoint, it is important to recognize that when examining
perceptions of a single destination, there may indeed be both
an “absolute” and “relative” image. More accurate measures
of perceptions may occur when we do not force respondents
into the somewhat artificial situation of considering a destination in isolation without comparison or reference to competing destinations. From a practical point of view, the
findings provide further evidence of the need to differentiate
a destination from competitors, and that direct comparisons
can be useful in clarifying or enhancing perceptions.
Another important observation is that more favorable
destination brand personality ratings were associated with
more favorable self-congruity ratings for the Whitsundays, a
tentative indication of the link between brand personality
and self-identity. However, further research needs to be
conducted to investigate the link between brand personality
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 31, 2008
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 13
TABLE 8
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN BRAND PERSONALITY ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN DESTINATIONS
Personality
Descriptor
Sincere
Down to Earth
Honest
Wholesome
Cheerful
Exciting
Daring
Spirited
Imaginative
Up to date
Competent
Reliable
Intelligent
Successful
Sophisticated
Upper class
Charming
Rugged
Outdoorsy
Tough
Cairns
Whit
2.69
2.67
2.58
2.85
3.26
3.25
3.10
3.06
3.09
3.48
3.19
2.93
2.66
3.11
3.02
3.06
2.72
2.66
3.02
2.41
3.31
3.38
3.51
3.60
4.19
4.11
3.33
3.82
3.68
3.84
3.86
3.69
3.39
3.81
3.44
3.30
3.92
3.36
4.17
2.92
Paired t-test
Respondents who rated
both destinations
3.675*
3.364*
4.867*
4.672*
4.861*
4.066*
1.045
3.598*
3.536*
1.863
3.344*
4.165*
3.444*
3.301*
1.864
1.105
5.919*
2.923*
6.079*
2.287*
Cairns
Whit
2.58
3.14
2.96
2.99
3.81
3.80
3.44
3.54
3.32
3.51
3.37
3.35
3.15
3.56
3.14
2.73
3.13
2.95
3.81
2.91
2.81
3.36
3.04
3.45
4.22
4.09
3.45
3.63
3.64
3.60
3.54
3.50
3.06
3.64
3.13
3.01
3.39
3.06
3.96
2.70
Independent t-test
Respondents who rated
one destination
⫺1.475
⫺1.493
⫺0.515
⫺3.090*
⫺3.537*
⫺2.232*
⫺0.087
⫺0.704
⫺2.340*
⫺0.708
⫺1.349
⫺1.144
⫺0.687
⫺0.574
0.108
⫺1.956*
⫺1.846
⫺0.759
⫺1.040
1.390
Note: Mean based on 1 ⫽ not at all, 5 ⫽ strongly.
* ⫽ Items significant at p ⬍ 0.05.
TABLE 9
DIFFERENCES IN CONGRUENCE WITH SELF-IDENTITY FOR RESPONDENTS
WHO COMPARED BOTH DESTINATIONS
Statement
Cairns
A . . .Holiday is consistent with how I see myself
A. . .Holiday is consistent with how I would like to see myself
A. . .Holiday is consistent with how I believe others see me
A. . .Holiday is consistent with how I would like others see me
3.63
3.71
3.72
3.99
Whitsundays
2.81
2.67
3.16
3.10
Paired t-test
⫺3.891
⫺5.301
⫺3.000
⫺4.820
(.000)
(.000)
(.004)
(.000)
Mean based on 1 ⫽ not at all, 5 ⫽ strongly.
TABLE 10
DIFFERENCES IN CONGRUENCE WITH SELF-IDENTITY FOR RESPONDENTS
WHO RATED ONLY ONE DESTINATION
Statement
A
A
A
A
. . . holiday
. . . holiday
. . . holiday
. . . holiday
is
is
is
is
consistent
consistent
consistent
consistent
with
with
with
with
how
how
how
how
I
I
I
I
see myself
would like to see myself
believe others see me
would like others see me
Cairns
Whitsundays
3.17
3.29
3.38
3.47
2.76
2.82
3.16
3.07
Indep. t-test
2.817
2.970
1.409
2.566
(.005)
(.003)
(.160)
(.011)
Mean based on 1 ⫽ not at all, 5 ⫽ strongly.
and visitation, given the lower actual and intended visitation
results for the Whitsundays. This investigation would need
to include detailed consideration of the constraints that
influence actual travel behavior, such as cost, travel distance, and previous visitation, as well as the role of attributebased perceptions of the destination.
In summary, the research indicated that there is some
validity to the notion that brand personality can be used to
differentiate destinations. However, there is strong evidence
that J. Aaker’s traditional product brand personality model
does not translate directly to tourism destinations. Further
research is needed to refine and develop a brand personality
model that is valid and reliable for tourism destinations.
Also, the overall role of brand personality in the destination
choice process needs to be more closely evaluated given
that positive brand personality perceptions and strong
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 31, 2008
14 AUGUST 2007
self-congruence for the Whitsundays in this study did not
translate into higher actual or intended visitation. This is
particularly relevant given that, as is the case with the two
destinations that were the focus of this study, DMOs often
develop destination brand personality profiles that are somewhat generic and have considerable overlap with other destinations (e.g., friendly, relaxed). Given the ongoing
investment in and increased emphasis on destination branding, it is imperative that research in this area continues. In
particular the value of branding at a regional destination
level needs to be further explored, particularly when similar
and geographically close destinations are branded by
DMOs. More detailed investigation is required to determine
whether subtle differences in communicated brand personality are perceived by visitors, and, more important, whether
these perceptions influence destination choice. In fact, further research by the authors is under way that more closely
examines actual and potential visitor perceptions of the
Whitsundays—including quantitative attribute-based measures, perceptions of the personality of visitors and residents, and the complete list of J. Aaker’s 42 brand
personality traits. It is hoped that this continued work will
move us toward both the development of a brand personality conceptual framework more suitable for tourism destinations, and a better understanding of the influence brand
perceptions have on destination choice when compared to
other factors influencing perceptions and visitation.
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. (1996). “Measuring Brand Equity Across Products and Markets.”
California Management Review, 38 (3): 102–120.
Aaker, J. (1997). “Dimensions of Brand Personality.” Journal of Marketing
Research, 34 (3): 347–356.
Aramberri, J. (2001). “The Host Should Get Lost: Paradigms in Tourism
Theory.” Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (3): 738–761.
Back, K., and K. Lee (2003, May). “Brand Personality and Its Impact on
Brand Loyalty in the Upper-Upscale Hotel Industry.” In Conference
Proceedings of the First Asia-Pacific CHRIE Conference. Seoul,
Korea: International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional
Education, pp. 205–215.
Cai, L. (2002). “Cooperative Branding for Rural Destinations.” Annals of
Tourism Research, 29 (3): 720–742.
Ekinci, Y. (2003). “From Destination Image to Destination Branding: An
Emerging Area of Research.” e-Review of Tourism Research (eRTR),
1(2).
Haigood, T. (1999). “The Brand Personality Effect: An Empirical
Investigation.” In Proceedings of the American Marketing Association
Winter Educators’ Conference. Chicago: American Marketing
Association, pp. 149–150.
Hankinson, G. (2001). “Location Branding: A Study of the Branding Practices
of 12 English Cities.” Journal of Brand Management, 9 (2): 127–142.
Henderson, J. (2000). “Selling Places: The New Asia-Singapore Brand.”
The Journal of Tourism Studies, 11 (1): 36–44.
Hoeffler, S., and K. L. Keller (2003). “The Marketing Advantage of Strong
Brands.” Journal of Brand Management, 10 (6): 421–445.
Hosany, S., and Y. Ekinci (2003). “An Application of the Brand Personality
Scale into Tourist Destinations: Can Destinations be Branded.” In
Proceedings of the 34th Annual TTRA Conference. St Louis,
Missouri: Travel and Tourism Research Association, pp. 1–11.
Keller, K. L. (1993). “Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing
Customer-Based Brand Equity.” Journal of Marketing, 57 (1): 1–22.
King, J. (2002). “Destination Marketing Organisations: Connecting the
Experience Rather than Promoting the Place.” Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 8 (2): 105–108.
Morgan, N., and A. Pritchard (2002). “Contextualizing Destination
Branding.” In Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination
Proposition, edited by N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, and R. Pride. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 11–43.
Morgan, N., A. Pritchard, and R. Piggott (2003). “Destination Branding and
the Role of Stakeholders: The Case of New Zealand.” Journal of
Vacation Marketing 9 (3): 285–299.
Morgan, N., A. Pritchard, and R. Pride (2002). Introduction. In Destination
Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition, edited by
N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, and R. Pride. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann, pp. 3–10.
Ritchie, J. R. B., and R. J. B. Ritchie (1998). “Destination Marketing.”
International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism Report, 40:
89–116.
Sirgy, J., and C. Su (2000). “Destination Image, Self-Congruity, and Travel
Behaviour: Toward an Integrative Model.” Journal of Travel
Research, 38, 340–352.
Tourism Queensland (2004a). Draft Tropical North Queensland
Destination Management Plan 2004–2007. Tourism Queensland
Corporate Planning.
—— (2004b). Draft Whitsundays Destination Management Plan
2004–2007. Tourism Queensland Corporate Planning.
—— (2004c). Tropical North Queensland Regional Update: Summary
Results for Year Ending December 2003.
—— (2004d). Whitsundays Regional Update: Summary Results for Year
Ending December 2003.
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Roberto Hernandez Sampieri on October 31, 2008