Journal of Travel Research 2013 Bregoli 212 24

7/28/2019 Journal of Travel Research 2013 Bregoli 212 24

1/14

http://jtr.sagepub.com/Journal of Travel Research

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/52/2/212The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0047287512461566

2013 52: 212 originally published online 15 October 2012Journal of Travel ResearchIlenia BregoliEdinburgh

Effects of DMO Coordination on Destination Brand Identity : A Mixed-Method Study on the City o

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

can be found at:Journal of Travel ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/52/2/212.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Oct 15, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Feb 12, 2013Version of Record>>

at Tumaini Uni-Ingringa University College on June 10, 2013jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/52/2/212http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/52/2/212http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/52/2/212http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.ttra.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/52/2/212.refs.htmlhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/52/2/212.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/14/0047287512461566.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/14/0047287512461566.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/52/2/212.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/52/2/212.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/14/0047287512461566.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/52/2/212.full.pdfhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/content/52/2/212.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.ttra.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/52/2/212http://jtr.sagepub.com/


2/14

Journal of Travel Research

52(2) 212224 2012 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0047287512461566

http://jtr.sagepub.com

Introduction

Destinations are considered to be amalgams of tourism

products, offering an integrated experience to consumers

(Buhalis 2000, p. 97); as a result, in a destination several

products and services that are provided to tourists by differ-

ent stakeholders coexist. Therefore, destinations are charac-

terized by high fragmentation, which is one of the factors

that make destinations one of the most difficult entities to

manage (Fyall and Garrod 2005; Fyall and Leask 2007). In

light of the fragmentation of destinations on one hand and

the need to provide tourists with a seamless experience on

the other, the coordination of the stakeholders working

within the destination is pivotal.

This activity affects also the destination brand, which is a

topic that has attracted growing interest from scholars and

practitioners. Similarly to products and services, destinations

also must cope with increased competition from differentdestinations. As a result, the brand plays a pivotal role since

it is the real source of competitive advantage of destinations

because it allows destinations to differentiate themselves

(Beerli and Martin 2004; Garca, Gmez, and Molina 2012)

and to influence tourists choices and their satisfaction (Del

Chiappa and Bregoli 2012).

The academic literature has acknowledged the link

between stakeholder coordination and the destination brand,

recognizing that destination brand development is a matter

of coordination rather than a managed activity (Prideaux and

Cooper 2002; Hankinson 2004; Ooi 2004; Fyall and Leask

2007). On this point, for instance, Scott, Parfitt, and Laws

(2000, p. 202, cited by Fyall and Leask 2007) stressed the

relationship between coordination and effective destination

branding by arguing that the difficulties of co-ordination

and control have the potential to undermine a strategic

approach to marketing based on destination branding because

campaigns can be undertaken by a variety of tourist busi-

nesses with no consultation or co-ordination on the prevail-

ing message or the destination values being promoted.

Hence, the stakeholder coordination is one of the necessary

factors for developing a successful destination brand, along

with drawing stakeholder support (Ooi 2004; Konecnik and

Go 2008) and having stakeholders who are committed to the

brand because successful branding is likely when there is

unity of purpose and commitment by all stakeholders to a

common branding strategy (Hankinson 2001, p. 137).

Although the relationship between stakeholder coordina-tion and destination branding has been acknowledged in the

literature, the topic has so far received little attention. As a

consequence, this article tries to fill this gap by studying both

JTRXXX10.1177/0047287512

1The University of Northampton, Northampton, United Kingdom

Corresponding Author:

Ilenia Bregoli, Northampton Business School, The University of

Northampton, Boughton Green Road, Northampton, NN2 7AL,

United Kingdom

Email: [email protected]

Effects of DMO Coordination on

Destination Brand Identity: A Mixed-

Method Study on the City of Edinburgh

Ilenia Bregoli1

Abstract

Academic literature has paid little attention to stakeholder coordination and branding from a supply-side perspective. Thisarticle tries to fill this gap by applying the concept of internal brand strength to destination brands and analyzing whether

stakeholder coordination has an impact on the destination brand. A mixed-method design involving stakeholders workingwithin Edinburgh, Scotland, revealed that within the city there is mixed commitment to the brand, and some coordination

mechanisms appear more useful than others for ensuring that stakeholders are committed to and adopt brand values intheir work. This article makes apparent that internal communication and socialization processes are fundamental activities

to which destination marketing organization (DMO) managers should pay attention if they want stakeholders to becomecommitted to the destination brand values and adopt them in their work.

Keywords

destination management, stakeholder coordination, destination branding, internal brand strength, mixed-methods

http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/


3/14

Bregoli 213

the coordination carried out by the DMO and the destination

brand analyzed from a supply-side perspective. With regard

to the latter aspect, this paper has applied the concept of

internal brand strength that consists of the brand commit-

ment and the brand citizenship behavior dimensions. In order

to study these topics, the author has carried out empirical

research in Edinburgh, Scotland, to address the followingresearch questions:

Research question 1: To what extent are the stake-

holders committed to the destination brand values

(brand commitment)?

Research question 2: Do stakeholders adopt the desti-

nation brand values in their work (brand citizenship

behavior)?

Research question 3: Does the coordination activity

have an impact on brand commitment and brand

citizenship behavior?

Literature Review

In light of the research questions, the literature review will

address the two topics of stakeholder coordination and des-

tination branding from a supply-side perspective. However,

it must be pointed out that regarding these topics, there is a

dearth of literature that is specifically related to tourism.

Therefore, the research considers concepts developed for

business organizations and applies them to the tourism

industry. This choice is consistent with the concept of desti-

nation stakeholders that this research adopts and considers

organizations that have some role in the tourism destina-

tion (Baggio and Cooper 2010, p. 1759). Therefore, this

research regards public and private organizations (such as

visitor attractions, accommodations, and transport) as

stakeholders.

Coordination

According to Hankinson (2007), the coordination of stake-

holders working within the destination is one element of

destination governance that entails the involvement of differ-

ent organizations in the decision-making process (Baggio,

Scott, and Cooper 2011; Spyriadis, Buhalis, and Fyall 2011).

Although a unique definition of destination governance does

not exist, scholars have studied topics that fall under it, liketourism networks and their structure (Scott, Cooper, and

Baggio 2008) and collaboration among destination stake-

holders (Jamal and Getz 1995; Fyall and Garrod 2005; Wang

and Xiang 2007; Rodger, Moore, and Newsome 2009;

Arnaboldi and Spiller 2011). However, although destination

governance is attracting a growing interest from scholars, the

topic of stakeholders coordination is an unexplored topic.

Although the coordination of organizations has been stud-

ied for a long time within the managerial literature, a unique

definition of the concept does not exist. While some scholars

consider it synonymous with the concept of cooperation,

others view them as two distinct concepts (Payan and

Svensson 2007). According to the latter perspective, which

this research applies, cooperation is the act of sharing

resources in order to take advantage of collective opportuni-

ties. On the contrary, coordination is a process through which

the actions of different organizations are managed to achievea common goal (Grandori 1999) and it is necessary in order

to cope with the interdependencies that develop between

firms (Grandori 1995).

Since within destinations there are interdependencies

between firms because they provide tourists different prod-

ucts and services, it is easy to understand how coordination

is important. On this topic some scholars have pointed out

that the DMO acts as a coordinator of both the stakeholders

who work in the destination and the marketing activities

which the DMO and single businesses carry out (Jamal and

Getz 1995; Getz, Anderson, and Sheehan 1998; Buhalis

2000; Prideaux and Cooper 2002; Ritchie and Crouch 2003;

Fyall and Garrod 2005; Gretzel et al. 2006; Wang andFesenmaier 2007). Furthermore, scholars acknowledge how

the lack of stakeholder coordination can result in ineffective

tourism development (Moscardo 2011).

In this research, in order to study coordination, some the-

ories on interorganizational relationships have been analyzed

with the aim of identifying a set of coordination mechanisms

that DMOs might use. Table 1 shows the considered theories

and the coordination mechanisms that were identified.

However, from the literature analysis, the author reduced

the original list of coordination mechanisms because some

were more suitable than others for DMOs. These mechanisms

are the following:

Social norms, that is, informal rules that organiza-

tions share. They are linked to trust and reciprocity

that allow the establishment of relationships between

the diverse parties involved and peer-based control

(Pfeffer and Salancik 1978; Cannon, Achrol, and

Gundlach 2000). In the case of community destina-

tions, trust among stakeholders is necessary in order

to agree on common decisions (Beritelli, Bieger, and

Laesser 2007), to share with other stakeholders own

core competencies like a customer database and

when stakeholders share a common brand (Palmer

1998; Fyall and Garrod 2005). Communication is the most developed mecha-

nism that exists in all networks. It is necessary if

the network participants want to develop a long-

lasting relationship (Grandori and Soda 1995).

Communication is also pivotal within destina-

tions because effective communication is neces-

sary in order to involve stakeholders and ensure

that they are satisfied with the DMO (Bornhorst,

Ritchie, and Sheehan 2010). Other research has

shown that communication is essential in order

http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/http://jtr.sagepub.com/


4/14

214 Journal of Travel Research 52(2)

to avoid internal conflicts between stakeholders

such as with the setup of a Cultural District in

Italy (Arnaboldi and Spiller 2011).

Interlocking directorates occur when a person

affiliated with one organization sits on the board of

directors of another organization (Mizruchi 1996,

p. 271). Not only are they a source of legitimacy but

they also allow firms to gain access to information,

resources, and expertise (Hillman, Withers, and

Collins 2009). Researchers found that in tourism,

destinations in which there were people sitting on

different boards were following a successful strat-

egy (Beritelli, Bieger, and Laesser 2007).

Planning and control systems are based on the con-

trol of results achieved against previously set objec-

tives (Grandori and Soda 1995). These systems allow

destination managers to understand what actions

deserve retention and development over time and, incase less effective initiatives are identified, to imple-

ment corrective actions (Ritchie and Crouch 2003).

Selection systems that regulate the access to a net-

work (Grandori and Soda 1995). Reid, Smith, and

McCloskey (2008), in their research on the Atlan-

tic Canada Tourism Partnership, stressed the need

to carefully plan stakeholder participation. For

instance, the marketing committees of this partner-

ship were made up by representatives of firms who

had the necessary expertise in marketing.

Information systems (such as reservation systems)

allow the coordination of firms in a network, thus

simultaneously decreasing communication costs

(Grandori and Soda 1995). Within destinations, the

use of information technology (IT) and of destina-

tion marketing information systems (DMISs), in

particular, can facilitate the connection between

stakeholders and the dissemination of information

across the destination (Ritchie and Ritchie 2002;

Fyall 2011).

Formal rules represented by the statute and the rules

for brand usage. Research on this topic showed that

DMOs that used formalized rules aimed at regulat-

ing the relationships between members were per-

ceived to be more effective than those that did not

have formal rules (Palmer 1998).

BrandingDestination branding has attracted attention from scholars

since the end of the 1990s (Cai 2002; Blain, Levy, and

Ritchie 2005; Pike 2005; Konecnik and Gartner 2007;

Konecnik and Go 2008; Boo, Busser, and Baloglu 2009).

The majority of studies have focused on the demand-side

perspective of brands, that is, the brand image. However,

scholars have recently recognized that adopting just one

perspective is not sufficient; a supply-side perspective also

should be taken into account and, as a result, the destination

Table 1. A Synthesis of the Theories Taken into Account

Theory Unit of Analysis Coordination Mechanisms

Network theory Network Communication, decision, and negotiation mechanisms

Social coordination and control

Integration and linking-pin roles and units

Common staff

Hierarchy and authority relations

Planning and control systems

Incentive systems

Selection systems

Information systems

Public support and infrastructure

Transaction cost economics Transactions Price

Relational exchange theory Relationships Relational norms

Stakeholder theory Stakeholders None

Strategic management RBV Firm with referenceto its resources

None

Value chain framework Firm with referenceto its activities

Horizontal strategy

Horizontal systemsResource dependence theory Firm Mergers

Norms

Joint ventures

Interlocking directorates

Trade associations and cartels



5/14

Bregoli 215

brand identity should be studied as well (Cai 2002; Konecnik

and Go 2008; Boo, Busser, and Baloglu 2009). To consider

both perspectives, some scholars (Park, Cai, and Lehto

2009; Del Chiappa and Bregoli 2012) have attempted to

integrate them into a comprehensive model of destinationbranding. In addition, Garca, Gmez, and Molina (2012)

stressed that both perspectives should be taken into account

while assessing the destination brand success and, from their

analysis of the Castilla-La Mancha brand, it emerged that

the greatest contribution to its success was due to local

entrepreneurs.

As far as the supply-side perspective is concerned, the

brand identity element must be taken into account. It is rep-

resents the core values that a business wants to communicate

and, on the basis of which, all the other elements of the offer

are established (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2002; de

Chernatony 2006; Kapferer 2008). Brand identity is particu-

larly useful for staff members because if they have a clear

understanding of the brand values, they can behave in a way

that reinforces those values (Burmann and Zeplin 2005).

Similarly to organizations, also within destinations, the

brand identity can guide stakeholders behavior, but only if

they believe in those brand values. It is important that the

brand identity is consistent with the values of the destination

and of the local community, thus accounting for the sense of

place (Wheeler, Frost, and Weiler 2011). Otherwise, the end

result is that an incongruent brand identity might develop

and the stakeholders do not support the overall brand (Park,

Cai, and Lehto 2009).

Another aspect that the tourism literature has highlightedis stakeholders roles in destination brand development. For

instance, Hankinson (2004), in his relational network brands

model, pointed out that if a destination brand wants to suc-

ceed, it needs to build relationships with key stakeholders.

Allan (2011) also stressed this aspect and argued that by

developing the brand in partnership, stakeholders can, on

one hand, set a shared strategy, thus broadening their focus,

which will not only encompass their own objectives, and on

the other hand, coordinate all the messages about the destina-

tion. However, since all destination stakeholders might not

be supportive of the brand, some scholars suggest that IT

might help in connecting stakeholders through forums,

e-mails, websites, and discussion boards (Tasci 2011).

The need to gain support from different stakeholders so

that the brand is accepted and adopted by them has been also

highlighted by Konecnik and Go (2008) and Ooi (2004),who defined the politics of destination branding, that is,

the process through which a DMO gains support from stake-

holders so that they accept the brand and communicate it

through their communication activities and products. Not

only is it important to gain support from stakeholders, but it

is also fundamental for stakeholders to be committed to the

brand. On this point, from a study on 12 English cities, it

emerged that the commitment of stakeholders is fundamen-

tal to the development of a destination brand; in particular, it

was argued that successful branding is likely when there is

unity of purpose and commitment by all stakeholders to a

common branding strategy (Hankinson 2001, p. 137).

Brand commitment is one dimension that make up the

internal brand strength. Although scholars have developed

this latter concept for product and service brands, the author

believes that it could be applied to destination brands consid-

ering the features that distinguish them from the former

brands. Garca, Gmez, and Molina (2012) also suggested

this approach and stressed the usefulness of understanding

business organizations branding practices in order to apply

them to destination brands. As a result, the internal brand

strength for destinations will refer to destination stakehold-

ers rather than to organizations employees. The internal

brand strength consists of the following two dimensions:

1. Brand commitment is the extent of psychological

attachment of employees to the brand, which influ-

ences their willingness to exert extra effort towards

reaching the brand goals (Burmann and Zeplin

2005, p. 284) and comprises three elements: brand

compliance, brand identification and brand inter-

nalization (Table 2);

2. Brand citizenship behavior describes a number

of generic employee behaviors that enhance brand

identity (Burmann, Zeplin, and Riley 2009, p. 266)

and comprises seven dimensions (Table 3).

Table 2. Dimensions of Brand Commitment

Dimensions Definitionsa Definitionsb

Brand compliance Employees willingness to adjust his or herviews and behaviours in accordance with therequirements of the brand and/or company

The adoption of certain behaviours that are consistentwith the aspired brand identity in order to gain extrinsicrewards or to avoid penalties

Brand identification The extent to which the employee believes to

be a constituent of the brand and the firm

Acceptance of social influence due to a sense of belonging

to the group determining the brand experience, and aperception of being intertwined with the group's fate

Brand internalization The degree to which the employee hasincorporated the brand into his or herthinking and behaviour

It delineates the appropriation of core brand values intoone's self-concept as guiding principles for one's actions

a. Source: Authors elaboration based on definitions by Burmann, Zeplin, and Riley (2009), p. 266.b. Source: Authors elaboration based on definitions by Burmann and Zeplin (2005), p. 285.



6/14


Table 3. Dimensions of Brand Citizenship Behavior

Dimensions Definitions

Helping behavior Positive attitude, friendliness, helpfulness, and empathy toward internal and external customers, takingresponsibility for tasks outside of own area if necessary

Brand consideration Adherence to brand-related behaviour guidelines and reflection of brand impact before communicating or takingaction in any situation

Brand enthusiasm Showing extra initiative while engaging in brand-related behaviours

Sportsmanship No complaining, even if engagement for the brand causes inconvenience; willingness to engage for the brand evenat high opportunity costs

Brand endorsement Recommendation of the brand to others also in non-job-related situations, for example, to friends; passing on thebrand identity to newcomers in the organisations

Self-development Willingness to continuously enhance brand-related skills

Brand advancement Contribution to the adaptation of the brand identity concept to changing market needs or new organisationalcompetencies, for example, through passing on customer feedback or generating innovative ideas

Source: Authors elaboration based on definitions by Burmann and Zeplin (2005, pp. 283-84).

According to Burmann and Zeplin (2005), brand commit-

ment, which is an antecedent of brand citizenship behavior,is created through brand-centered HR activities, brand com-

munication of the identity, and brand leadership. The first

two factors lead to the development of brand commitment

based on brand internalization, which represents the highest

level of brand commitment.

Methodology

The phenomena under investigation were studied by adopt-

ing a mixed-method design for the capital city of Scotland,

Edinburgh. This choice was made because mixed methods

are suitable when the collection of just one type of data is

insufficient in order to understand the phenomena under

investigation (Creswell and Plano Clark 2010). A conver-

gent parallel design was adopted in which the qualitative and

quantitative data were collected and analyzed independently

during the same phase of the research project. Results were

merged by comparing them and were interpreted and dis-

cussed by stating the degree to which they converged,

diverged, or related. In order to mix both qualitative and

quantitative data, a pragmatist worldview was adopted.

Pragmatism is a practical research philosophy that is ori-

ented toward the solution of real problems and in which

attention is paid to the consequences of the research (Green

and Caracelli 2003; Teddlie and Tashakkori 2003; Creswelland Plano Clark 2010; Feilzer 2010).

With regard to the qualitative strand of this research, sec-

ondary as well as primary data were collected. The former

were represented by documents and reports on the Destination

Edinburgh Marketing Alliance (DEMA). These documents

were either downloaded from the partnerships website or

were received from some of the interviewees. Primary

data were collected through 12 face-to-face semi-structured

interviews (in total 19 people were contacted) with individu-

als representing diverse subsectors of the tourism industry.

These included, but were not limited to, visitor attractions,

the accommodation sector, a tour operator, the National

Tourism Organization (NTO), and tourism promotion. Theinterviewees were selected by adopting a purposive sam-

pling strategy as it allows the researcher to select individu-

als and sites for study because they can purposefully inform

an understanding of the research problem and central phe-

nomenon in the study (Creswell 2007, p. 125). In particular,

a snowball sampling procedure was applied whereby the first

participants were asked to suggest other people who might

be worth contacting to plan an interview (Flick 2006). All

the interviews were tape-recorded and then transcribed; the

transcripts were analyzed by coding them. The coding proce-

dure involved two steps: first, a structural coding was applied

to the interview transcripts in order to analyze those parts

that allowed to answer the research questions (Saldaa

2009); second, a holistic coding followed by an initial cod-

ing that allowed to critically analyze data were applied to the

overall transcripts (Gibbs 2007; Saldaa 2009). The second

step aimed to identify relevant themes that were not directly

linked to the research questions but that allowed more in-

depth understanding of the investigated topics. During the

overall process, a coding book was developed and analytic

memos were written. The author, as principal researcher,

developed the coding book in both rounds of coding. An

independent researcher then analyzed the transcripts and

developed his own code book. At the end of this process,

both researchers met and discussed the developed codes.When disagreements arose, the two researchers discussed

them until reaching an agreement. At the end of this process,

the author undertook the final coding.

The quantitative strand of the research was carried out

through an online questionnaire that was administered to a

sample of stakeholders working within the destination, par-

ticularly business owners and managers of tourism organiza-

tions (either small or big businesses). The questionnaire

consisted of four parts: (1) general questions about the

respondent and his perceptions about the Edinburgh

Inspiring Capital brand; (2) a section regarding coordination



7/14

Bregoli 217

in which the respondents had to indicate, on a list of coordina-

tion mechanisms, whether they were used by DEMA and, in

a subsequent question, they had to indicate on a 5-point Likert

scale (1 = not useful at all; 5 = extremely useful) whether the

same coordination mechanisms had been useful to them in

adopting the Edinburgh Inspiring Capital brand values;

(3) a section on brand commitment; (4) a final section on

brand citizenship behavior. Items included in the latter two

sections were developed on the basis of the definitions pro-

vided by Burmann and Zeplin (2005) and by taking into

account the specific characteristics of the destination. All the

items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale on whichthe respondents were asked to rate their degree of agreement

or disagreement with them (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly

agree). An e-mail containing the link to the questionnaire was

sent to a sample of 348 stakeholders (Table 4). A total of 65

completed questionnaires were received with a response rate

of 18.68%. The data were checked and questionnaires that

were not usable were deleted, resulting in 55 usable question-

naires being retained. An analysis was carried out on the

items that had a Cronbach higher than 0.7; as a result one

dimension of brand commitment (i.e., brand compliance) and

one dimension of brand citizenship behavior (i.e., brand

advancement) were deleted.

All the data were collected between June and October 2010.

Results

Description of the Case

Edinburgh is the capital city of Scotland. In 2010, the total

numbers of UK and overseas visitors were 1.9 million and

1.3 million, respectively. It is considered the gateway to

Scotland; indeed, within all of Scotland it accounted for

56% of overnight international visitors in 2010 (VisitScotland

2011). In terms of destination marketing and management,

the City of Edinburgh is characterized by high complexitybecause of the several organizations that are involved at

various levels in its management and marketing. These

include, but are not limited to, VisitScotland, which is the

National Tourism Organization; the Edinburgh Convention

Bureau; the Edinburgh Tourism Action Group (ETAG),

which was the first publicprivate partnership working in

the destination set-up in 2001; the City of Edinburgh

Council; the Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh & Lothian; and

from 2009, the Destination Edinburgh Marketing Alliance.

As Fyall and Leask (2007) noted, the complexity that

characterizes tourism management within the city implies

that within the destination there are different objectives that

coexist and that must be taken into account. Therefore, the

role of coordination is fundamental. This study will focus on

the Destination Edinburgh Marketing Alliance (DEMA), a

publicprivate partnership that is the citys destination mar-

keting organization. Its remit is to promote the city as a placeto visit, live, work, invest, and study.

DEMA is a publicprivate partnership that was estab-

lished as a company limited by guarantee with a remit of

promoting Edinburgh as a place to visit and in which to

invest, live, work, and study. DEMA was set up to deal with

fragmentation and a lack of coordination because there were

too many organizations that were promoting the city differ-

ently and sending divergent messages to the marketplace.

Along with promoting the city, DEMA is also responsible

for coordinating the city promotion carried out by the diverse

organizations and managing the Edinburgh Inspiring

Capital brand, which is the destination brand used to pro-

mote the city across the five themes. DEMA has a board ofdirectors, on which the majority of seats is given to the pri-

vate sector, which usually chairs the board itself; further-

more, the board is structured so that all the macro-sectors of

DEMAs promotion are represented.

With regard to the coordination of the citys stakeholders,

DEMA uses all the coordination mechanisms that the litera-

ture review described. Communication is carried out through

meetings, events, and communication activity carried out by

representatives of sectors who report back to their sectors.

However, the latter activity is not formalized. In addition,

DEMA uses promotional campaigns (such as the This

Is My Edinburgh summer campaign or the Edinburgh

Sparkles winter campaign) as a mechanism to coordinate

participants. Information systems, which are related to gen-

eral communication, are in place, although DEMA does not

have reservation systems. Nevertheless, the website allows

information sharing with stakeholders. DEMA also uses

newsletters, e-zines, and a customer relationship manage-

ment (CRM) system established in 2010 to share information

among DEMAs partners. Planning and control systems

through which the results achieved are controlled against the

set objectives and this kind of check is an ongoing process

carried out throughout the year. The objectives to be met are

clearly stated in the partners strategy, business plan, or resil-

ience plan and the results are measured through, for instance,ad hoc surveys or metrics that, in the case of DEMA, allow it

to monitor the number of unique viewers of the website,

Twitter account, etc. As far as interlocking directorates are

concerned, DEMAs board of directors is made up of people

who are affiliated to different organizations and there is a

group of people who are involved in more than one organiza-

tion, such as DEMA; the Edinburgh Tourism Action Group,

which is responsible for the citys tourism development; and

the Edinburgh Convention Bureau. DEMA is also relying on

formal rules, such as a partnership statute and rules for brand

Table 4. Sample Size and Composition

Database Sample Size

DEMA 220

Edinburgh Principal Hotel Association 54

Edinburgh Hotel and Guest House Association 74

Total sample size 348



8/14


9/14

Bregoli 219

Table 5. Merged Results

Themes Qualitative Results Quantitative Results

Brand commitment 10 of 12 interviewees believed thatthere was mixed commitment tothe Edinburgh Inspiring Capitalbrand.

Respondents commitment to the brand:

38.2% were strongly committed or committed

29.1% were fairly committed

32.8% were not committed or not committed at all

Brand citizenship behavior More work needs to be carriedout so that the brand values areadopted by stakeholders in their job

High helping behavior toward visitors

63.6% of respondents were aware that, through theirbehavior, they communicate the destination brand, but

just 23.7% of them take into account the effects thattheir advertising activity has on it

Half of the respondents have discussions with otherpeople on the brand

Few respondents are willing to sacrifice their interests toadopt the destination brand (3.6%)

Not all newcomers to the businesses receive informationon the Edinburgh Inspiring Capital brand (18.2%)

Half of the respondents are keeping abreast on thedestination brand

Effects of coordination onthe brand

Increased awareness of theEdinburgh Inspiring Capital brandand the citys promotion strategy

Most useful mechanisms:

Communication (51.1%)

Formal rules (49.1%)

Interlocking directorates (43.7%)

Social norms (43.6%)

SD = 1.218) declared that they had discussions with col-

leagues or other business people on the destination brand.

Sportsmanship had low positive percentages of agree-

ment; indeed, just 32.7% (mean = 2.91; SD = 1.059) of the

respondents declared that they had accepted the brand guide-

lines without questioning them, but more than half of the

respondents (60%) did not agree that they had adopted the

brand guidelines even if that implied changing their busi-

nesss decisions (mean = 2.36; SD = 0.778). Brand

endorsement was measured by asking whether newcomers

to businesses received information on the Edinburgh

Inspiring Capital brand values; the results showed that just

18.2% of the respondents (mean=

2.45; SD=

0.959) agreed.Finally, with reference to self-development, almost half of

the respondents (54.5%; mean = 3.36; SD = 1.060) declared

that they were keeping abreast of the development of the

destination brand through meetings, newsletters, etc.

As far as the impact that the coordination activity had on

brand commitment and brand citizenship behavior is con-

cerned, the respondents were asked whether each coordination

mechanism identified was useful for understanding and adopt-

ing the Edinburgh Inspiring Capital brand values. Among

all the mechanisms, communication (51.1%; mean = 3.40;

SD = 0.873), formal rules (49.1%; mean = 3.45; SD = 1.033),

interlocking directorates (43.7%; mean = 3.24; SD = 1.018),

and social norms (43.6%; mean = 3.33; SD = 1.019) were

reported to be the most useful.

Discussion

In this research, the qualitative and quantitative data were

merged during interpretation by comparing them side by

side through a summary table (Creswell and Plano Clark

2010). The comparison of data is shown in Table 5.

The first two research questions referred to the extent to

which the stakeholders are committed to and adopt the desti-

nation brand values in their work. The concepts of brandcommitment and brand citizenship behavior were investi-

gated. With regard to the former, both sets of results show

that there is mixed commitment of stakeholders to the

Edinburgh Inspiring Capital brand because both positive

and negative answers coexisted. Indeed, the great majority of

interviewees highlighted that there are stakeholders within

the destination who are really committed to the brand, while

others are less committed, and there are also people who

know nothing about the brand. This view of mixed commit-

ment is supported by the results achieved from the quantita-

tive strand of the research because the percentages for those



10/14


who are committed, fairly committed, and not committed are

similar. Brand commitment is a construct that consists of

three dimensionsbrand compliance, brand identification,

and brand internalizationwhich were investigated through

the online survey. Similarly to the results achieved by

Burmann, Zeplin, and Riley (2009), also in the case of the

Edinburgh Inspiring Capital brand, brand compliance wasnot found to be a significant dimension. Thus, brand com-

mitment is composed of two dimensions: brand identifica-

tion and brand internalization; the former seems to be more

developed than the latter. As far as brand identification is

concerned, more than two-thirds of the respondents felt they

were part of the overall destination rather than part of the

group of stakeholders working within the city. Meanwhile,

with reference to brand internalization, the results gained

from the questionnaire were lower than those referring to

brand identification; for instance, just half of the respondents

declared belief in the Edinburgh Inspiring Capital brand

values.

As far as the brand citizenship behavior is concerned, theinterviewees felt that more work needed to be undertaken for

the Edinburgh Inspiring Capital brand values to be adopted

by the destination stakeholders. Majority (63.6%) of the

respondents were aware that they communicate the destina-

tion brand through their behavior; nevertheless, few of them

took into account how their advertising activity might affect the

destination brand itself. In addition, the respondents showed

a low level of agreement with a couple of dimensions. For

example, 3.6% of the respondents were willing to sacrifice

their own interests for the sake of the brand and 18.2% of the

respondents agreed that newcomers received information on

the Edinburgh Inspiring Capital brand.

Thanks to the interviews it was possible to identify some

of the possible reasons of both the mixed commitment and

the low level of brand citizenship behavior. First, it seems that

brand awareness is an antecedent of brand commitment that,

in turn, influences brand citizenship behavior. Some of

the interviewees explained that the awareness is still low,

although thanks to the establishment of DEMA, things have

improved. One interviewee argued:

I dont think its [the Edinburgh Inspiring Capital

brand] widely known as it should be and I think there is

more work to be done to raise the awareness of it. And I

think [when the] new DEMA comes into existence therewill be further work done to encourage all stakeholders

in the city to use the city of Edinburghs branding.

Furthermore, stakeholders did not perceive the brand as

the city brand, but as the Council brand. This was because

although DEMA was established as an independent organi-

zation, its offices were located within the City Council. For

instance, one interviewee stated:

Where I think the City Council made an error was that

instead of seeing this brand as the citys brand, and it

should be managed externally by a DEMA or another

external body or collections of bodies, they kept the

brand team in-house. . . . The difficulty then is that

most external private sector perceptions are that the

brand is a Council brand, is a brand of the local author-

ity and not of the city and, for that reason along with

others, lack of investment being one of them, I dontthink the brand is mature in a way that it could or

should be quickly enough.

Similar to this view, another interviewee argued:

I think that . . . the stakeholders, some of them still

regard it [the Edinburgh Inspiring Capital brand]

as a local authority brand rather than a destination

brand, so there is certainly much more work to be

done in that.

Another issue that emerged was the difficult integration

between the destination brand and single corporate brandsbecause, in order to integrate them, it is necessary that the

values of both brands are congruent. For instance, one inter-

viewee stated:

The Edinburgh Inspiring brand is . . . used in the

public sector a great deal, not used as extensively in

the private sector because of a conflict sometimes

between the brand of Inspiring Edinburgh and the

brand of the private sectors owner organizations.

Sometimes, they dont fit well together, so its left

entirely up to the private sector to decide if they wish

to use the Edinburgh Inspiring Capital brand.

Furthermore, high staff turnover in the tourism industry

makes it difficult for business newcomers to become knowl-

edgeable about the destination brand and its values. The high

turnover is a big challenge for the destination as the follow-

ing interview excerpt validates:

Because of constant changes of individuals . . ., with

new people coming into organizations it is difficult to

reaffirm and educate them as to what the brand is actu-

ally about and how it came about and trying to get

them to become champions and owners of the brand.

So its not easy; its a challenge.

Finally, it seems that there is a relationship between the

degree of engagement toward the brand and the level of

involvement with DEMA and other partnerships that are

working in the tourism industry, such as the Edinburgh

Tourism Action Group. The more involved stakeholders are

toward the partnerships, the more engaged they are toward

the brand. In this regard, one interviewee stated:

It has not been adopted [the Edinburgh Inspiring

Capital brand] to the extent that really one would



11/14

Bregoli 221

have wished and those who are adopting it, like our-

selves, for example, tend to be those who are working

closest and are involved most within DEMA and

ETAG. So, if you were to go out onto the street and

ask a number of businesses along this area if they

know what the brand is and, two, are they using it,

then the answer to both of those questions would beI have no idea and No, Im not.

The third research question referred to the impact that the

coordination activity had on brand commitment and brand

citizenship behavior. The interviewees felt the coordination

activity was useful for increasing the overall level of brand

commitment but, at the same time, they believed it was too

early to make a judgment about it because DEMA was set up

too recently. Some more pieces of information were gained

through the quantitative survey in which respondents were

asked whether the coordination mechanisms were useful for

becoming committed to the brand values and for adopting

them. In this case, it emerged that communication, formalrules, interlocking directorates, and social norms were con-

sidered to be the most beneficial by the respondents.

Conclusion

To conclude, although the results from this research cannot

be generalized because of the limited sample size, they allow

us to point out some features to which destination managers

should pay attention. First, not only is it essential to assess

the destination brands external effectiveness, but it is also

crucial that the destination managers assess the internal

brand strength. This construct allows to measure stakeholder

commitment to the destination brand and the extent to which

their behavior reinforces the brand. Since DMOs should

ensure that stakeholders are committed and involved in the

destination brand strategy (Hankinson 2001; Ooi 2004;

Konecnik and Go 2008; Park, Cai, and Lehto 2009; Allan

2011), it is easy to understand the importance of measuring

the internal brand strength. Second, it is essential that the

DMO put in place activities that allow stakeholders to be

knowledgeable about the brand and its values so that they

can behave consistently regarding the brand.

From the results, it seems that activities such as internal

communication and HR activities are essential and the city

of Edinburgh must strengthen them. They are necessary inorder to develop brand identification that is the highest level

of brand commitment, which, in turn, leads to a high level of

brand citizenship behavior (Burmann, Zeplin, and Riley

2009). However, in the Edinburgh case, both brand identifi-

cation and brand citizenship behavior are low, which sug-

gests that the city needs to improve communication and HR

activities. With regard to the internal communication, it is

carried out through websites, e-mails, forums, and meetings.

Thus, all communication activities that the destination brand-

ing literature suggests (Park, Cai, and Lehto 2009; Tasci

2011) in order to have stakeholders knowledgeable and com-

mitted to the destination brand are in place. The city of

Edinburgh could benefit from improved communication

between DEMA board members and the sectors or associa-

tions that they are representing. Indeed, the case revealed

that this communication activity is not formalized and it is

left to individual initiative. As a result, different peoplereport back in different ways. For instance, some of them

send e-mails in which they provide basic information such as

when a meeting took place and the main discussion points.

Others officially report within the partnership board that they

are representing. This apparently leads to information

exchange imbalances because some stakeholders have more

information compared to others and this might affect the

overall knowledge about the brand and the brand commit-

ment. Consequently, DMOs should pay attention to the way

that stakeholder representatives communicate to the sectors

that they are representing.

As far as HR activities are concerned, they consist of a

wide range of activities such as staff training and socializa-tion, through events aimed at creating brand awareness, and

through absorbing the brand values once staff start working

within the organization (e.g., by learning and understanding

the brand from colleagues) (de Chernatony and Segal-Horn

2001; Burmann and Zeplin 2005; Vallaster and de Chernatony

2005; de Chernatony, Cottam, and Segal-Horn 2006).

Although these activities are difficult for a DMO to carry out

because people who work in the tourism industry are not

DMO employees, it should be taken into account that among

the DMOs roles there is human resources development

(Ritchie and Crouch 2003). For this reason, it cannot be

excluded a priori that a DMO cannot organize training pro-

grams or socialization activities that refer to the destination

brand. For instance, the DMO might organize events aimed

at newcomers to the businesses for making them knowledge-

able about the brand. Moreover, the DMO might organize

brand training sessions for tourism employees. The aim

would be to let them know and understand the brand values

and adopt the brand values in their work, for instance by pro-

viding them with examples of best practices and behaviors

coherent with the destination brand.

Limitations and Future Research

Like much research, this study is not free from limitations.In particular, because of the limited quantitative sample size,

the results cannot be generalized although they allow to shed

some light on a topic that deserves further research. In addi-

tion, it was not possible to apply any sophisticated statistical

analyses that would have allowed the author to highlight the

relationship between coordination mechanisms, brand com-

mitment, and brand citizenship behavior. Furthermore, in

light of the sample composition, the quantitative results

might have been overestimated. Indeed, the majority of the

sample came from the DEMA database, which consists of



12/14


people who know the partnership and the Edinburgh Inspiring

Capital brand.

Since the topic investigated in this research has not been

investigated in previous research, further research is needed.

For instance, the concepts of brand commitment and brand

citizenship behavior should be adapted to the context of des-

tination brands since scholars originally developed them forproduct and service brands. In addition, the study should be

repeated on a bigger sample in order to gain an adequate

sample size for applying the structural equation modeling

and, in this way, studying the relationship between the

various dimensions and their antecedents. Furthermore,

attention should be devoted to the study of the role

that stakeholder coordination has on the internal brand

strength in order to assess whether this activity has a direct

impact on it.

Despite this studys limitations, its contribution is valu-

able in that this is the first attempt at studying a destination

brands internal strength. This represents a relevant topic

not only for increasing scientific knowledge but also for theindustry. Indeed, by developing a tool that allows to assess

the internal brand strength, destination managers can put in

place actions aimed at improving it and, as a result, the over-

all destination brand.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect

to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, author-

ship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Aaker, David A., and Erich Joachimsthaler. (2002). Brand Leader-

ship. London: Simon & Schuster.

Allan, Malcolm. (2011). The Leadership Challenge. In Desti-

nation Brands: Managing Place Reputation, edited by Nigel

Morgan, Annette Pritchard, and Roger Pride. Oxford: Butter-

worth-Heinemann, pp. 81-90.

Arnaboldi, Michela, and Nicola Spiller. (2011). Actor-Network

Theory and Stakeholder Collaboration: The Case of Cultural

Districts. Tourism Management, 32 (3): 641-54.

Baggio, Rodolfo, and Chris Cooper. (2010). Knowledge Transfer

in a Tourism Destination: The Effects of a Network Structure.

Service Industries Journal, 30 (10): 1757-71.

Baggio, Rodolfo, Noel Scott, and Chris Cooper. (2011). Design of

Tourism Governance Networks. In Tourist Destination Gov-

ernance: Practice, Theory and Issues, edited by Eric Laws,

Harold Richins, Jerome Agrusa, and Noel Scott. Wallingford:

CABI, pp. 159-71.

Beerli, Asuncin, and Josefa D. Martin. (2004). Tourists Char-

acteristics and the Perceived Image of Tourist Destinations: A

Quantitative AnalysisA Case Study of Lanzarote, Spain.

Tourism Management, 25 (5): 623-36.

Beritelli, Pietro, Thomas Bieger, and Christian Laesser. (2007).

Destination Governance: Using Corporate Governance Theo-

ries as a Foundation for Effective Destination Management.

Journal of Travel Research, 46 (1): 96-107.

Blain, Carmen, Stuart E. Levy, and J. R. Brent Ritchie. (2005).

Destination Branding: Insights and Practices from Destination

Management Organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 43(4): 328-38.

Boo, Soyoung, James Busser, and Seyhmus Baloglu. (2009). A

Model of Customer-Based Brand Equity and Its Application to

Multiple Destinations. Tourism Management, 30 (2): 219-31.

Bornhorst, Tom, J. R. Brent Ritchie, and Lorn Sheehan. (2010).

Determinants of Tourism Success for DMOs & Destinations:

An Empirical Examination of Stakeholders Perspectives.


Buhalis, Dimitrios. (2000). Marketing the Competitive Destina-

tion of the Future. Tourism Management, 21 (1): 97-116.

Burmann, Christoph, and Sabrina Zeplin. (2005). Building Brand

Commitment: A Behavioural Approach to Internal Brand Man-

agement.Journal of Brand Management, 12 (4): 279-300.Burmann, Christoph, Sabrina Zeplin, and Nicola Riley. (2009).

Key Determinants of Internal Brand Management Success: An

Exploratory Empirical Analysis. Journal of Brand Manage-

ment, 16 (4): 264-84.

Cai, Liping A. (2002). Cooperative Branding for Rural Destina-

tions.Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (3): 720-42.

Cannon, Joseph P., Ravi S. Achrol, and Gregory T. Gundlach.

(2000). Contracts, Norms, and Plural Forms of Governance.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2): 180-94.

Creswell, John W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design.

Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. (2010). Designing

and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

de Chernatony, Leslie. (2006).From Brand Vision to Brand Evalu-

ation. The Strategic Process of Growing and Strengthening

Brands. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

de Chernatony, Leslie, Susan Cottam, and Susan Segal-Horn.

(2006). Communicating Services Brands Values Internally

and Externally. Service Industries Journal, 26 (8): 819-36.

de Chernatony, Leslie, and Susan Segal-Horn. (2001). Build-

ing on Services Characteristics to Develop Successful Ser-

vices Brands.Journal of Marketing Management, 17 (7/8):

645-69.

Del Chiappa, Giacomo, and Ilenia Bregoli. (2012). Destination

Branding Development: Linking Supply-Side and Demand-Side

Perspectives. In Strategic Marketing in Tourism Services, edited

by Rodoula H. Tsiotsou and Ronald E. Goldsmith. Bingley:

Emerald, pp. 51-61.

Feilzer, Martina Yvonne. (2010). Doing Mixed Methods Research

Pragmatically: Implications for the Rediscovery of Pragmatism

as a Research Paradigm.Journal of Mixed Methods Research,

4 (1): 6-16.

Flick, Uwe. (2006).An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London:

Sage.



13/14

Bregoli 223

Fyall, Alan. (2011). Destination Management: Challenges and

Opportunities. In Destination Marketing and Management:

Theories and Applications, edited by Youcheng Wang and

Abraham Pizam. Wallingford: CABI, pp. 340-57.

Fyall, Alan, and Brian Garrod. (2005). Tourism Marketing: A Col-

laborative Approach. Clevedon: Channel View.

Fyall, Alan, and Anna Leask. (2007). Destination Marketing:Future IssuesStrategic Challenges. Tourism and Hospitality

Research, 7 (1): 50-63.

Garca, Juan A., Mar Gmez, and Arturo Molina. (2012). A Des-

tination-Branding Model: An Empirical Analysis Based on

Stakeholders. Tourism Management, 33 (3): 646-61.

Getz, Donald, Don Anderson, and Lorn Sheehan. (1998). Roles,

Issues, and Strategies for Convention and Visitors Bureaux in

Destination Planning and Product Development: A Survey of

Canadian Bureaux. Tourism Management, 19 (4): 331-40.

Gibbs, Graham R. (2007). Analyzing Qualitative Data. London:

Sage.

Grandori, Anna. (1995). Lorganizzazione delle Attivit Economi-

che. Bologna: il Mulino.Grandori, Anna. (1999). Organizzazione e Comportamento Eco-

nomico. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Grandori, Anna, and Giuseppe Soda. (1995). Inter-firm Networks:

Antecedents, Mechanisms and Forms. Organization Studies,

16 (2): 183-214.

Green, Jennifer C., and Valerie J. Caracelli. (2003). Making Para-

digmatic Sense of Mixed Methods Practice. In Handbook of

Mixed Methods Research in Social & Behavioral Research,

edited by Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 91-110.

Gretzel, Ulrike, Daniel R. Fesenmaier, Sandro Formica, and

Joseph T. OLeary. (2006). Searching for the Future: Chal-

lenges Faced by Destination Marketing Organizations.Journal

of Travel Research, 45 (2): 116-26.

Hankinson, Graham. (2001). Location Branding: A Study of the

Branding Practices of 12 English Cities. Journal of Brand

Management, 9 (2): 127-42.

Hankinson, Graham. (2004). Relational Network Brands: Towards

a Conceptual Model of Place Brands. Journal of Vacation

Marketing, 10 (2): 109-21.

Hankinson, Graham. (2007). The Management of Destination

Brands: Five Guiding Principles Based on Recent Develop-

ments in Corporate Branding Strategy.Journal of Brand Man-

agement, 14 (3): 240-54.

Hillman, Amy J., Michael C. Withers, and Brian J. Collins. (2009).

Resource Dependence Theory: A Review. Journal of Man-

agement, 35 (6): 1404-27.

Jamal, Tazim B., and Donald Getz. (1995). Collaboration Theory and

Community Tourism Planning.Annals of Tourism Research,

22 (1): 186-204.

Kapferer, Jean-Nol. (2008). The New Strategic Brand Manage-

ment: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. London:

Kogan Page.

Konecnik, Maja, and William C. Gartner. (2007). Customer-Based

Brand Equity for a Destination.Annals of Tourism Research,

34 (2): 400-21.

Konecnik, Maja, and Frank Go. (2008). Tourism Destination

Brand Identity: The Case of Slovenia.Journal of Brand Man-

agement, 15 (3): 177-89.

Mizruchi, Mark S. (1996). What Do Interlocks Do? An Analysis,

Critique, and Assessment of Research on Interlocking Director-

ates.Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 271-98.

Moscardo, Gianna. (2011). The Role of Knowledge in GoodGovernance for Tourism. In Tourist Destination Governance:

Practice, Theory and Issues, edited by Eric Laws, Harold

Richins, Jerome Agrusa, and Noel Scott. Wallingford: CABI,

pp. 67-80.

Ooi, Can-Seng. (2004). Poetics and Politics of Destination Brand-

ing: Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tour-

ism, 4 (2): 107-28.

Palmer, Adrian. (1998). Evaluating the Governance Style of

Marketing Groups. Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (1):

185-201.

Park, Oun Joung, Liping A. Cai, and Xinran Y. Lehto (2009). Col-

laborative Destination Branding. In Tourism Branding: Com-

munities in Action, edited by Liping A. Cai, William C. Gartner,and Ana Mara Munar. Bingley: Emerald, pp. 75-86.

Payan, Janice M., and Gran Svensson. (2007). Co-operation, Coor-

dination, and Specific Assets in Inter-Organizational Relation-

ships.Journal of Marketing Management, 23 (7-8): 797-814.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald R. Salancik. (1978). The External Con-

trol of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective.

New York: Harper & Row.

Pike, Steven. (2005). Tourism Destination Branding Complexity.

Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14 (4): 258-59.

Prideaux, Bruce, and Chris Cooper. (2002). Marketing and Des-

tination Growth: A Symbiotic Relationship or Simple Coinci-

dence?Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9 (1): 35-51.

Reid, Laurel J., Stephen L. J. Smith, and Rob McCloskey. (2008).

The Effectiveness of Regional Marketing Alliances: A Case

Study of the Atlantic Canada Tourism Partnership 20002006.


Ritchie, J. R. Brent, and Geoffrey I. Crouch. (2003). The Competitive

Destination. A Sustainable Tourism Perspective. Wallingford:

CABI.

Ritchie, Robin J. B. and J. R. Brent Ritchie. (2002). A Framework

for an Industry Supported Destination Marketing Information

System. Tourism Management, 23 (5): 439-54.

Rodger, Kate, Susan A. Moore, and David Newsome. (2009).

Wildlife Tourism, Science and Actor Network Theory.Annals

of Tourism Research, 36 (4): 645-66.

Saldaa, Johnny. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative

Researchers. London: Sage.

Scott, Noel, Chris Cooper, and Rodolfo Baggio. (2008). Desti-

nation Networks: Four Australian Cases. Annals of Tourism

Research, 55 (1): 169-88.

Spyriadis, Thanasis, Dimitrios Buhalis, and Alan Fyall. (2011).

Dynamics of Destination Governance: Governance and

Metagovernance in the Composite Industrial Environment of

Destinations. In Tourist Destination Governance: Practice,

Theory and Issues, edited by Eric Laws, Harold Richins, Jerome

Agrusa, and Noel Scott. Wallingford: CABI, pp. 187-202.



14/14


Tasci, Asli D. A. (2011). Destination Branding and Positioning.

In Destination Marketing and Management. Theories and

Applications, edited by Youcheng Wang and Abraham Pizam.

Wallingford: CABI, pp. 113-29.

Teddlie, Charles, and Abbas Tashakkori. (2003). Major Issues and

Controversies in the Use of Mixed Methods in the Social and

Behavioral Sciences. InHandbook of Mixed Methods Researchin Social & Behavioral Research, edited by Abbas Tashakkori

and Charles Teddlie. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 3-50.

Vallaster, Christine, and Leslie de Chernatony. (2005). Interna-

tionalisation of Services Brands: The Role of Leadership dur-

ing the Internal Brand Building Process.Journal of Marketing

Management, 21 (1/2): 181-203.

VisitScotland. 2011. Edinburgh. Additional Facts and Insights.

http://www.visitscotland.org/pdf/Final%20Edinburgh%20

Additional%20Insights_pptx%20%5BRead-Only%5D.pdf

(accessed June 25, 2012).

Wang, Youcheng, and Daniel R. Fesenmaier. (2007). Collabora-

tive Destination Marketing: A Case Study of Elkhart County,

Indiana. Tourism Management, 28 (3): 863-75.

Wang, Youcheng, and Zheng Xiang. (2007). Toward a Theoretical

Framework of Collaborative Destination Marketing. Journal

of Travel Research, 46 (1): 75-85.

Wheeler, Fiona, Warwick Frost, and Betty Weiler. (2011). Desti-nation Brand Identity, Values, and Community: A Case Study

from Rural Victoria, Australia. Journal of Travel & Tourism

Marketing, 28 (1): 13-26.

Bio

Ilenia Bregoli, PhD, is a Lecturer in Marketing at the University of

Northampton, UK. Her research interests are in destination man-

agement, destination marketing and experiential marketing.
http://jtr.sagepub.com/

Documents

Journal of Travel Research 2013 Bregoli 212 24