Destination image formation

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Introduction.

The following section of the paper refers to the critical evaluation of the existing literature on the concept of destination image, its components, formation process and factors influencing this process. Further the author tries to show the link between destination image and mega-events, with the main focus on mega-sports events. The nature of events, their classification and the impact resulting from hosting mega-sports events are also taken under consideration in order to provide more in-depth information for readers.

2.2. Destination image.

When developing and implementing marketing strategies, destinations primarily aim to attract tourists by influencing their travel decision-making and choice (Tasci and Gartner, 2007). As indicated by a wide range of researchers, this influence has an immense potential to be achieved through destination image optimization ( Milman and Pizam, 1995; Baloglu and McCleary, 1999......). Images tourists have of destinations do not only influence their decision to travel to the place, but also affect their ‘after-decision making behaviour’ (Chen and Tsai, 2007).

During the last four decades, destination image was defined in different ways and from different perspectives. It may be simply described as "impressions of a place" or "perceptions of an area" (Echtner and Ritchie, 1993). Or it may get a broader definition as suggested by Um and Crompton (1992) to be ‘a holistic construct which is derived from attitudes toward a destination’s perceived tourism attributes’.

Image has a nature of an elusive and confusing construct, which is as strong as to significantly affect the tourist consumer behaviour (Tasci et al., 2007). Symbolic information generated by means of media or acquired from social groups lead to the formation of an image for alternative destinations, thus image appears to be a critical element in the destination choice process (Um and Crompton, 1992). Chon (1990) shares the same view about the image of a place, which has a crucial role in a traveller’s decision making when choosing the destination. He also underlines its significance for the post travel satisfaction level of the visitor, since it largely depends on his/her comparison of the expectations prior to visit, or a previously held destination image, and the perceived actual performance of the destination. This is explained by the fact that tourists base their images of a destination on their perceptions, and those perceptions are directly connected with their attitudes and motivation, hence affect the entire consumer behaviour (Blazevic and Stojic, 2006). Therefore, it may be argued that destination image along with affecting the decision-making process of a tourist to travel to a destination can also influence his/her post travel satisfaction, the factor with a direct connection to the favourable development of a destination (Mohan, 2010).

Tourism image is critical for other aspects of the industry as well. Marketers make decisions for planning, positioning and promoting a place by putting significant reliance on the results of the area’s image research, which subsequently helps them to carry out successful destination marketing (Tasci et al., 2007). Therefore, it is relevant to sum up that image emerges to be an effective tool directly influencing the time visitors spend at a destination, their positive evaluations of the destination or their satisfaction with the travel, their intention to revisit the destination, readiness and willingness to spread a word of mouth about it, desire to visit, the length of trip in the travel planning process and the budgeted finance to be spent at the destination (Tasci et al., 2007).

2.2.1. The meaning of destination image.

Numerous research works conducted previously to investigate the nature of tourism image and its functions noted the ‘heterogeneous, complex, and dynamic nature’ of the image concept which led to the emergence of multiple definitions of destination image and various ways of conceptualising the construct of destination image (Stepchenkova and Mills, 2010). Giving a general description, it may be stated that image is a set of meanings attached to an object, through which it becomes known, described, remembered and related to (Chon, 1990). That means ‘a person’s beliefs, ideas, feelings, expectations and impressions about an object’ form an overall image of it as a result of interaction between these variables (ibid.).

In the context of travel and tourism industry, Crompton (1979) find it gives an analogous definition for destination image, describing it as ‘the aggregate sum of beliefs, ideas, impressions, and expectations that a tourist has about a tourist destination area’. The way tourists interpret or perceive the reality subjectively appears to be the basis in the destination image formation process (Bigne, Sanchez & Sanchez, 2001). Image has two closely interrelated components which affect its formation: cognitive evaluations based on the knowledge and the beliefs a person has about an object, and affective appraisals referring to a person’s feeling about the object (Beerli, Martin, 2004). Due to the fact that researchers give definitions to image focusing on its particular aspects, it is natural that they may vary (Tasci et al., 2007).  In this study particularly, image is defined as ‘a compilation of beliefs and impressions based on information processing from various sources over time resulting in internally accepted mental constructs’ (Sirakaya et al, 2001). !!!!!!!!pause

2.2.2. The components of destination image.

Baloglu and McCleary (1999) developed a model of destination image formation based on the previous research works investigating the subject. The authors found out that tourist form the images of destinations under the influence of both the stimulus factors and their personal characteristics. They suggest that stimulus factors such as variety and type of information sources have more impact on affect, whereas cognitive evaluations of tourists are influenced by socio-psychological motivations. Moreover, the authors found out that in the process of destination formation the affective components are more significant than cognitive ones, and serve as an intervening variable between cognitive and conative components of destination image.

Hunt (1975, cited in Martin and Bosque, 2008) points out that beliefs and perceptions people have of a destination are prevailing over the objective reality due to their unfamiliarity with a destination before visiting it. Therefore, according to the author, both tangible factors such as tourist attractions and other tourism resources experienced by a tourist during actual visitation and their pre-visit images are equally influential for the tourism development of an area. One of the first studies investigating the involvement of both tangible and intangible factors in the formation of destination image was undertaken by Gartner (1993). As a result of his research, he came to conclusion that images are formed by three clearly different, though closely interrelated components known as cognitive, affective and conative elements, which determine the way any product or a destination is perceived by the consumers (Gartner, 1993). Pike and Ryan (2004) highlight the possibility of developing a competitive destination positioning strategy through a deep analysis of these three components of image formation. The researchers claim that “effective positioning requires a succinct, focused and consistent message. Positioning analysis requires an understanding of how a destination is perceived to perform on attributes deemed important to the target market, relative to the competition”. Martin and Bosque (2008) state that while the earlier studies focusing on destination image were mainly pointing at the significance of cognitive components, current researchers prefer to consider both cognitive and affective elements of destination image formation in conjunction.

With a reference to the study undertaken by Scott (1965), Gartner (1993) defines the cognitive image component as a consumer’s evaluation of the previously known attributes specific to a product or perceiving a product in an intellectual way. The cognitive image is formed under the influence of external stimulus factors, whereas the affective component is identified by the motivations of a traveller to choose the particular destination (ibid.). In their review of the image component related research, Baloglu and McCleary (1999) point out the tight interrelation between cognitive and affective components, placing more emphasis on cognition in influencing the emotions of a person.

Tasci et al. (2007) argue that affect may consist of both positive and negative feelings towards an object with fluctuating intensity. According to their research, affective components of image may be expressed through such high level emotions like love and anger, or feelings like satisfaction and frustration, people’s moods like boredom and relaxation, and their simple attitudes such as liking and disliking (ibid.). As for cognition, it is described as a ‘mental response’ which requires a person to think about, pay attention to details, remember, understand, interpret, evaluate and make decisions about the information received from the related environment’ (Tasci et al., 2007). Drawing conclusion on the components influencing the image formation, the authors suggest they involve prior knowledge, perception and interpretations of a person, his/her evaluations and decisions (ibid).

The mutual influence of two destination image components result in a behaviour, which is defined by Gartner (1993) as a conative image component. The auhor claims that this element becomes obvious after all internal and external information is received and processed, and when any decision is made. Hence, conative image component is directly influenced by the previously discussed image components, as a person makes a decision about the choice of a place after a careful consideration of images derived from cognitive stage and evaluations resulting from affective stage (ibid.).

Echtner and Ritchie (2003) suggest that destinations may be evaluated with regard to their attribute-based components or holistic components. Apart from these, they also bring forward some obvious characteristics, directly observed and measured by tourists (accommodation, tourist sites, nature, prices), as well as abstract, though highly influential components such as friendliness, general atmosphere and safety. The more tangible elements of a destination image are related to functional characteristics, while intangible components are described as psychological characteristics of a place (ibid.). In addition to that, the researchers state that destinations may have characteristics common to those of other countries, along with some distinctly unique features specific only to the destination or to a very limited number of places.

Through the analysis of interrelations among the image components mentioned in the previous paragraph, Tasci et al. (2007) highlight the rational knowledge of common and unique attributes and travellers’ emotional attitude towards them as a core of all the other elements of image formation. They argue that the mutual influence of cognitive and affective image components lead to the formation of a composite, in other words holistic or overall image of a destination, which helps a consumer to make a final decision about his/her travel destination choice. According to the researchers, the fact-based nature of the common and unique attributes allows a tourist to avoid stereotypical holistic perception of a destination. Taken together the results of the study undertaken by Tasci et al (2007) suggest that destination image formation is a system involving dynamic interaction of all the components which should not be considered separately. Each of the image components can influence the perception of a consumer in different ways, sometimes being a cause and the other times being an effect of a change. The exact nature of the components can be investigated through an integrated analysis of all the components Therefore, the authors describe the image as ‘an interactive system of thoughts, opinions, feelings, visualizations, and intentions toward a destination’.

2.2.3. Destination image formation process.

Gallarza et al. (2002) described the nature of tourism destination image as complex, multiple, relativistic and dynamic.  According to the authors, the first description is based on the idea that destination images are formed under the influence of different components (cognitive, evaluative and conative) which adds complexity to the conceptual, as well as methodological delineation of the image construct. The interrelation of these components is described as a reason leading to different interpretations and a lack of unique or collective image of a destination. Similarly, the existence of various factors and image formation stages is considered to be the base for multiple nature of the identity of destination image. Another feature of destination image described as subjectivity, along with its being comparative is suggested to lead to a relativistic nature of destination image, which means that image related perceptions of people vary from person to person and they are formed by comparing the images of other destinations. The researchers suggest that the dynamic nature of tourism destination image is conditioned by time and space, which means that images change depending on the time passed and the physical distance of travellers from the destination itself.

Destination marketing organisations (DMOs) should not only concentrate on creating awareness in the process of image formation, but they also need to take into account the match of every projected image with the expectations and demands of the targeted audience, which should be able to receive the message in the form it was initially aimed to be rendered (Gartner, 1997). Similarly, the image formation process becomes more effective if the target segment is exposed to its dynamic nature and the interaction of various image influencing factors such as communication mix and the implementation of various promotional efforts undertaken to have a positive impact on the image perception of travellers (McCartney et al., 2008).

The researchers of the field agree that image formation may be defined as creation of a logical representation of a destination in the minds of the tourists who rely on the information messages sent by image formation agents and accepted by a person (Gartner,1993; Young, 1999; Bramwell and Rawding, 1996).

Despite the general tendency to use image, perception and attitude as substitutional factors in the literature of destination image, Sussmann and Unel (1999) express their disagreement with it, even though they are extremely similar. According to them, attitudes influence the perceptions, which in their own turn affect the image.

Destination image is initially formed as a consequence of a “flood of information” which may have its source from promotional literature, recommendations and opinions of others and the general media (Echtner and Ritchie, 2003). Travellers’ actual visit experience, as first-hand information, adds up to the further modification of a destination image (ibid.). Tasci and Gartner (2007) point out that their review of the literature on destination image formation process found out that the image agents may derive from three sources: the destination itself (supply-side), independent or autonomous sources and the visitors (demand-side).

DMOs put a significant amount of emphasis on the promoting the place, aiming to create positive image or modify an existing image by means of advertising and spreading a word around to create familiarity (Bramwell and Rawding 1996; Young 1999). However, they cannot fully control the way the messages are delivered to the recipients. The projected image may result in a completely different interpretation of the travellers (Court and Lupton, 1997) or may be altered by the sender of the image creating messages (ibid.) or it may be overshadowed by the other messages and fail to reach the recipient (Tasci and Gartner, 2007).

According to Gunn (1989) destination images are formed at two levels: an organic image and an induced image. Organic images do not include any efforts put by a destination to promote the place; they derive as a consequence of historical-geographical events and a communication with no tourism implications (ibid.). The researcher states that the information creating associations in the minds of tourists come from written and broadcasted material such as news reports of world events in mass-media, geography books, fiction and non-fiction. With regards to an induced image, the author describes it as an image deriving under the influence of deliberate efforts of a DMO to promote, advertise and create awareness about the place.

The environment of any destination is capable to provide innumerable information cues for tourists, which affect the way they perceive the destination (Sirgy and Su, 2000). The cues may be reflected in the accommodation facilities, general atmosphere, location, climate, service and prices (ibid). Destination marketers have to be able to determine the cues used by visitors in forming their perceptions about a certain destination (ibid.). Sirgy and Su (2000) argue that while some of the cues can be manipulated by DMOs, the others are uncontrollable. The destination (product), prices, location (place) and the promotion are the cues likely to be under control of destination marketers, whereas such cues as tourists’ personal characteristics and the climate are uncontrollable (ibid.).

Table N... Image Formation Agents (adopted from Gartner(1993))

The study of image formation process and the components involved in it are of paramount importance for the tourism development of destinations, since the detection of different image formation agents’ affect on the perceptions of tourists can give valuable hints to the destination marketing strategy (Gartner, 1993). Destinations pay attention to the amount and the content of the image formation agents they use, and by excluding or including certain components they can be tracked of the image they pursue to create in the minds of the target market (Tasci and Gartner, 2007). Depending on their credibility level and uniqueness, autonomous agents have different effects. If the information is highly credible and considerably different from the previously held images of tourists, it can effectively and quickly alter the perception. While, on the contrary, the information reaching the target audience gradually and with less originality form the former image formation agents has a slow effect (ibid.). Gartner and Shen (1992) state that autonomous image agents can have a prompt effect on the image of a destination depending on the level of control by the destination and the size, as well as the media coverage of the events which cause the emergence of such information. Phelps (1986, cited in Beerli and Martin, 2004) classifies organic, induced and autonomous image formation agents as a secondary image, while naming the image created as a consequence of actual visitation a primary one.

Communication process is the determiner of the image formation according to Blazevic and Stojic (2006). The researchers point out that if a potential traveller finds his/her desirable and close to real image while communicating with a destination under consideration, it can convince him/her to choose the destination. If a marketing strategy can not attract the potential tourists and do not identify the images desirable for them, it may face a failure.

2.2.4. Factors influencing destination image formation process.

It is crucial for destination marketers to understand the reasons leading people to choose particular destinations, to identify the factors influencing them and to explore the way they perceive and create images in their minds (Blazevic and Stojic, 2006). Due to the link between a country’s tourist image and national image (Kotler, 1987), tourists are exposed to a wide range of information spectrum. Any information delivered through non-commercial sources reflecting the history, economy, policy or social system of a country may serve as a factor of image formation (ibid.).

Beerli and Martin (2004) conducted a review of the instruments measuring the images attached to the areas with the aim of developing a model of destination image measurement. However, ‘the lack of universally accepted, valid and reliable scale’ of image measurement led the authors to consider every element of destination which could be used to measure its image. Thus, taking into account all factors influencing people’s evaluation of the places and considering all the image measuring attributes described in the existing scales, the researchers suggest to assess the destination images according to the following dimensions: natural resources, general infrastructure, tourist infrastructure, tourist leisure and recreation, culture, history and art, political and economical factors, natural environment, social environment, atmosphere of the place (ibid.). Similar to this, Therkelson (2003) emphasised the importance of societal, cultural and geographical factors of a destination, since they are the components which affect the overall holiday experience of travellers resulting in either positive or negative assessment.

Stimulus factors and personal factors are suggested by Baloglu and McCleary (1999) to composite the destination image formation model.

A range of researchers agree that personal characteristics of people affect their perception of a destination. Therefore, it is fair to note that images are formed through the images projected by destinations and internal factors of people such as motivations, needs, pre-visit knowledge, preferences and other personal factors (Beerli and Martin, 2004).  Personal factors include socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, education level, place of residence, etc.) and psychological factors (motivations, values, personality, etc) of a person (ibid.). The influence these personal factors have on the cognitive thinking of a person modifies his/her perception and result in the image he/she forms in his/her mind (Beerli and Martin, 2004). Socio-demographic and cultural factors affect the needs, motivations and interests of people according to which they choose what to see, hear, read and pay attention to (Tasci and Gartner, 2007). Consequently all of these factors affect people’s interpretations of the attributes specific to a destination, thus form its image (ibid.).