TM-Line - Runyan

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

Destination marketing and the service-dominant logic:A resource-based operationalization of strategic marketing assets

Nathaniel D. Line a,*, Rodney C. Runyan b,c,1

a Florida State University, Dedman School of Hospitality, B4113 University Center, 288 Champions Way, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USAb Texas State University, School of Family and Consumer Sciences, 101 FCS Building, San Marcos, TX 78666, USAc Lancaster University Management School, UK

h i g h l i g h t s

� The resource-based view is considered within the context of destination marketing.� The service-dominant logic is used to construct a destination resource hierarchy.� Three stakeholder-based categories of strategic marketing assets are identified.� A DMO’s market-based assets are operationalized as a second-order latent construct.� The implications of this construct for future research are discussed.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 20 September 2013Accepted 28 January 2014

Keywords:Destination marketingThe resource-based view of the firmService-dominant logicStakeholder marketingStrategic assets

a b s t r a c t

Despite the popularity of the resource-based view of the firm as a theoretical mechanism for theexplanation of organizational performance, this framework has received surprisingly little attentionwithin the context of destination marketing organizations (DMOs). The purpose of this research is toenhance extant perspectives of destination competitiveness by considering the destination marketingfunction from the dual theoretical lenses of the resource-based view of the firm and the service-dominant logic of marketing. In particular, this research focuses on the resource classification schemasunderpinning these two frameworks and proposes a conceptual extension of their core phenomena tothe domain of destination marketing. Within this discussion, a conceptual and operational definition ofcompetitive market-based assets is proposed. This multifaceted construct is discussed as a potentialoutcome of market-oriented destination marketing and as an antecedent to DMO performance.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Destinations are recognized as the primary unit of analysis inthe domain of tourism research (Pike & Page, 2014), and as such,destination marketing organizations (DMOs) have taken onincreased importance for tourism scholars. Depending on the viewone takes, the DMO is either a marketing organization, responsiblefor driving business to the destination (Gartrell, 1992; Pike & Page,2014), or it is amanagement organization, providing leadership anddirection for the multifaceted tourism system (Murphy & Murphy,2004). Regardless of whether one sees the penultimate functionof these organizations as management or marketing, DMOs are a

key component of destination success (Bornhorst, Ritchie, &Sheehan, 2010; Ford & Peeper, 2008). In this paper, we take theposition that while marketing is the core function of a DMO (Pike &Page, 2014), stakeholder management (e.g., leadership, direction,coordination and management of a destination’s value-propositionacross stakeholders) is likewise an essential facet of strategicdestination marketing. Utilizing prevailing theoretical lenses fromthemanagement andmarketing literature, we develop our positionby proposing and operationalizing a latent conceptualization ofstrategically valuable destination marketing assets emanating fromkey stakeholder markets.

Destination marketing organizations are unique as they exertlittle control over many of the resources they must leverage toachieve success. That is, DMOs control neither the destinationinfrastructure (e.g., roads, transportation, etc.) nor the privatelyowned suppliers of the tourism product (e.g., lodging, dining, retail,etc.). Lack of resource control notwithstanding, DMOs are still in

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 850 645 2710; fax: þ1 850 644 5565.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N.D. Line), [email protected] (R.C. Runyan).

1 Tel.: þ1 512 245 2155; fax: þ1 512 245 3829.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.01.0240261-5177/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Tourism Management 43 (2014) 91e102


charge of managing their destination’s value proposition. Withoutthe ability to control the product or its attributes, however, DMO’smust create value by coordinating the efforts of those stakeholdersthat directly control the destination’s core and supporting re-sources. But how do DMOs act strategically if they do not control(and therefore cannot directly deploy) destination resources?

Pike and Page (2014) suggest that the quintessential goal of allDMOs is sustained destination competitiveness and that to attainthis requires the cultivation of resources that can build competitiveadvantage. Thus, given the networked makeup of the destinationmarketing industry (Ford, Wang, & Vestal, 2012; Wang & Xiang,2007), the ultimate challenge for DMOs is to facilitate resourceinteraction and combination across destination stakeholders.While the strategic importance of interorganizational resourceinteraction is a relatively new course of academic inquiry (e.g.,Baraldi, Gressetvold, & Harrison, 2012), the structure of the desti-nation marketing industry suggests the utility of such a framework.

Unfortunately, because a unifying theoretical framework thatclearly identifies the sources of sustainable competitive advantagefor DMOs has yet to be achieved, tourism research has fallen behindthe more general streams of marketing research in its ability tomeasure the organization-level latent phenomena associated withsuccessful implementations of the marketing concept. In light ofthis important theoretical gap, the purpose of this paper is three-fold: First, we draw a series of parallels among the service-dominant logic of marketing (Vargo & Lusch, 2004), the stake-holder marketing movement (Bhattacharya & Korschun, 2008;Gundlach & Wilkie, 2010), and the resource-based view of thefirm to propose a hierarchical classification of destination re-sources. Second, we explain the dynamic relationships among theresources within the proposed hierarchy. Finally, we provide sup-port for this framework by developing conceptual and operationaldefinitions of a DMO’s market-based assets through the formalscale development process (Churchill, 1979). This multidimensionalconstruct is discussed as a potential outcome of market-orienteddestination marketing and as an antecedent to DMO performance.

2. Conceptual framework

If the DMO is an organization that functions in both marketingand management capacities (Bornhorst et al., 2010), approaches toconstruct development must likewise draw from prevailing

perspectives in both the marketing and the management litera-tures. From the management literature we utilize the resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1991) to provide a general frame-work of how resources are identified and leveraged by a firm tocreate competitive advantage and long-term success. Within thisgeneral framework, a more specific model of the DMO is derivedthrough the incorporation of two separate theories of marketing:the service-dominant logic (SDL) (Constantin & Lusch, 1994; Vargoand Lusch, 2004) and market orientation (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990;Narver & Slater, 1990). This model demonstrates the strategicpaths by which the DMO acts upon resources outside of its control(i.e., operand resources) using its own resources (i.e., operant re-sources) to create a higher-order (composite) resource base (seeMadhavaram & Hunt, 2007). We propose that this process results inthe development of a set of market-based assets that facilitate theachievement of a DMO’s ultimate goal, sustained destinationcompetitiveness. Fig. 1 synthesizes these distinct constructs andprovides an overview of the framework used to propose andoperationalize the multidimensional market-based assetsconstruct.

2.1. RBV, SDL and destination marketing organizations: anintegrated framework

The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm seeks to explain thesources of long-term organizational success (Barney, 1991; Peteraf,1993; Wernerfelt, 1984). Under the assumption that firms (orga-nizations) are fundamentally heterogeneous in terms of resourcesand capabilities, the resource-based view posits that long-termfinancial success accrues to those organizations that most effi-ciently and effectively deploy resource endowments in themarketplace (Peteraf, 1993). Such resources may be tangible orintangible (Barney, 1991) and can have varied sources of origin(Hooley, Broderick, & Möller, 1998). In order for a resource tocontribute to the creation of a sustainable competitive advantage,however, it must be valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (Barney, 1991).

Despite the acceptance of RBV within the strategic managementliterature as a viable framework for explaining organizational per-formance (Crook, Ketchen, Combs, & Todd, 2008), the theory re-ceives surprisingly little attention within the context of destinationmarketing organizations (DMOs). One potential reason for the

Fig. 1. An SDL-based hierarchy of destination marketing resources.

N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / Tourism Management 43 (2014) 91e10292


dearth of RBV-focused research in the tourism and destinationmarketing literature is that, until recently, scholars have consideredthe tenets of marketing thought fundamentally incompatible withthose of the resource-based view (see Srivastava, Fahey, &Christensen, 2001). However, the shift in marketing thought froma goods- or product-centered dominant logic to a service-centereddominant logic (Constantin & Lusch, 1994; Lusch & Webster, 2011;Madhavaram & Hunt, 2007; Vargo & Lusch, 2004) has helped tobridge the gap between the resource-based view and contempo-rary perspectives pertaining to the nature and scope of marketingthought.

Of particular consequence in making the theoretical link be-tween RBV and SDL is the distinction among several types of re-sources. Within the SDL framework, Constantin and Lusch (1994)refer to resources as either operand or operant. Briefly, operandresources are possessed of a relatively low level of utility untilimbued with value via the deployment of a higher-order set ofoperant resources. A key feature of the SDL is the notion that op-erant resources (as opposed to operand resources) stand as thelocus of a sustained competitive advantage (Vargo & Lusch, 2004).We propose that this concept is particularly salient in the tourismindustry, as destinations have become increasingly homogenized(Crouch, 2011) and operand resources (e.g., sun, sand, historical,water, etc.) are increasingly seen as substitutable. In terms of theresource-based view, because substitutable resources are certainlynot rare and lose value based on consumer perceptions (Peteraf,1993), such resources cannot be leveraged for sustainablecompetitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Accordingly, the SDL pro-motes the importance of intangible resources, stakeholder re-lationships, and the co-creation of value (Lusch & Webster, 2011;Vargo & Lusch, 2004) within the marketing function.

Among the most important canons of the SDL paradigm is thecontention that value is no longer created merely through theexpression of a firm-level value proposition to the market but viathe interactions of the focal firm/organization with a broad set ofexternal stakeholders (Lusch &Webster, 2011). This shift away froma product-centered dominant logic to an emphasis on relationshipsamong networked actors raises some important questions in thefield of destination marketing: For example, given the unique pa-rameters associatedwith themarketing of destinations (as opposedto the marketing of tangible goods), what is the nature of theoperand/operant resource dichotomy within the domain of desti-nation marketing? Likewise, what is/are the locus/loci of valuecreation in the destination marketing function, and what are thepotential sources of competitive advantage that arise from in-teractions between the DMO and its stakeholder markets? Finally,what are the potential benefits of a market-oriented approach todestination marketing, and how should these relationally basedconstructs be organized, conceptualized, and operationalized? Thefollowing sections address these critical issues, culminating in setof propositions pertaining to the dimensional structure of such aconstruct.

2.2. Destination competitiveness

The increasingly competitive conditions in the contemporarymarket for destinations (Pike & Ryan, 2004) have facilitated a cor-responding interest in the identification of the destination-levelfactors associated with destination competitiveness. Within thisstream of research, a number of classification schemata have beenproposed that identify a multitude of attributes associated withdestination competitiveness (e.g., Crouch, 2011; Dwyer, Mellor,Livaic, Edwards, & Kim, 2004; Enright & Newton, 2004; Ritchie &Crouch, 2003). The majority of this research, however, has beenconducted at the level of the destination with relatively little

discrimination between the destination itself and the organizationscharged with marketing and managing the destinations (seeBornhorst et al.’s, 2010 qualitative study for an important excep-tion). As a result, while there has been progress toward the goal ofidentifying what a competitive destination looks like in terms of itsoverall attribute structure, relatively less is known about thesources of these competitive advantages from a strategic manage-ment perspective and, perhaps more importantly, at the organi-zational level.

A second limitation to the contemporary perspective of desti-nation competitiveness is that it lacks a hierarchical approach toresource classification. In general, resources refer to the tangibleand intangible factors that contribute to improved efficiency and/oreffectiveness in the provision of some market offering (Barney,1991). However, resource-based theory holds that not all re-sources contribute to the development of a competitive advantagein the same way (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Barney, 1991; Hooleyet al., 1998; Hunt & Morgan, 1995; Srivastava, Shervani, & Fahey,1998). Acknowledging that firm resources are homogenous andimperfectly mobile, Barney (1991) stipulated that in order to beconsidered as a source of sustainable competitive advantage, aresource must be valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and imper-fectly substitutable.

This resource-based approach to competitive advantage is anintegral component of the service-dominant logic. Similar to theresource-based view, the SDL distinguishes between resourcesbased on the ability to confer competitive advantage. Building onresource-based theory, proponents of the SDL differentiate be-tween operand and operant resources (Vargo & Lusch, 2004), aswell as among hierarchical levels of the operant resources them-selves (Madhavaram & Hunt, 2007). Unfortunately, while the or-ganization of these RBV- and SDL-based theoretical phenomenahave contributed greatly to the advancement of marketing thought,tourism research has been slow to apply these frameworks.

In order to fully understand the manifestations of these classi-fication schemata in the context of destination marketing, it is firstnecessary to take a closer look at the differences between operandand operant resources. First, in terms of establishing an RBV-basedresource classification system of destination marketing resources,the stipulation that operand resources must be acted upon in orderto confer value is perhaps themost important distinction. However,a second essential feature of operand resources is their basal na-ture. Operand resources are common and, of themselves, arepossessed of a relatively low degree of marginal utility (Constantin& Lusch, 1994). Considered within the terminology of the resource-based view, operand resources do not represent a strong source ofsustainable competitive advantage because they are abundantlyavailable at the aggregate level, are largely substitutable, and can beimitated relatively easily. As such, many commonly acknowledgeddestination attributes such as physiography and climate, culture,heritage/history, activitymix, infrastructure, and superstructure (cf.Dwyer et al., 2004; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003) can be seen as operandresources. While these resources are necessary for the productionof a DMO’s market offering, the increasing homogenization ofdestinations (Crouch, 2011) has rendered these attributes highlysubstitutable in many product categories (e.g., sun and sand, urban,etc.) (Usakli & Baloglu, 2011).

Additionally, DMOs have relatively limited control of a desti-nation’s operand resources. These organizations control neither thedestination’s infrastructure nor the private suppliers of the tourismproduct. Likewise, a DMO does not own the natural and historical/heritage-based resources that play such a critical role in manydestinations’ competitive positions (Dwyer et al., 2004; Enright &Newton, 2004). Because many of these core and supportingdestination-level resources are largely beyond the direct control of

N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / Tourism Management 43 (2014) 91e102 93


the DMO, it is difficult to deploy them advantageously withoutcombining them with other resources (cf. Madhavaram & Hunt,2007). Recalling that operant resources are employed to act onoperand resources (and other operant resources) to create value(Vargo & Lusch, 2004), the capabilities that allow a DMO to coor-dinate its operand resources into a value-proposition can be seen asthe operant locus of value creation in the destination marketingfunction. As discussed in the following section, these capabilitiesare the essence of a market orientation (Day, 1994).

2.3. Market orientation and stakeholder marketing

As applied to destinations, the principles of the service-dominant logic suggest that (1) fundamental differences exist be-tween the (operand) destination resources that lie outside thecontrol of a DMO and the (operant) destination management re-sources/capabilities that are used to imbue the operand resourceswith utility and value; and (2) the value of a DMO to a destinationlies in its ability to deploy resources outside of its direct control tothe destination’s economic advantage (cf. Ford & Peeper, 2008). Toaccomplish such a task requires consideration not only of customerneeds, but also the needs of the public and private stakeholders ofthe destination’s tourism product (Fyall & Garrod, 2005; Murphy &Murphy, 2004; Sheehan, Ritchie, & Hudson, 2007; Wang, 2008).Thus, in order to be truly market-oriented, a DMO must go beyondthe traditional customer-centric notion of “the market” (i.e., Kohli &Jaworski, 1990; Narver & Slater, 1990). In addition to visitors, extantresearch on destination stakeholders suggests the existence of atleast two additional stakeholder markets with which a DMO mustinteract in order to be successful e the local government and thelocal tourism industry. As follows, stakeholder theory and theclosely related tenets of stakeholder marketing are introduced as ajustification for this expanded view of DMO market orientation. Inturn, this discussion forms the basis for the proposal (and subse-quent operationalization) of a DMO’s strategic marketing assets.

In contrast to traditional input-output models of the firm,stakeholder theory argues that managers should be concerned notonly with competitors and customers, but with all actors thatpossess a legitimate interest in the firm’s activities (Donaldson &Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984). While the formal application ofstakeholder theory to the field of marketing is a relatively newphenomenon, historical propositions concerning the nature andscope of marketing thought suggest that customers are but onemarket for which the tenets of the marketing concept apply(Bagozzi, 1975; Hunt, 1976; Kotler, 1972).

As discussed above, the service-dominant logic explicitly ac-knowledges the role of non-market stakeholders in the co-creationof value (Lusch, 2007; Lusch & Webster, 2011). Accordingly, pro-ponents of the “stakeholder marketing movement” (Gundlach &Wilkie, 2010) have called for a more direct consideration of stake-holder issues within the context of strategy development (e.g.,Bhattacharya & Korschun, 2008, Ferrell, Gonzalez-Padron, Hult, &Maignan, 2010; Lusch & Webster, 2011). Stakeholder marketingsuggests that, in addition to crafting marketing strategy based oncustomer- and competitor-level information (Kohli & Jaworski,1990; Narver & Slater, 1990), firms must also consider how theiractivities will affect all parties that hold a stake in their businesspractices and/or the outcome of these practices. In advocacy ofstakeholder marketing, Smith, Drumwright, and Gentile (2010) goso far as to warn against the potential onset of a “new marketingmyopia” which ignores the emergence of salient non-customerstakeholder markets that have come to wield significant powerover business activities and firm performance. Thus, in contrast tothe customer-centric, value-proposing dominant logic of Lusch andWebster’s (2011) “era two” conceptualization of the marketing

concept, stakeholder marketing identifies more strongly with thecontemporary paradigm (i.e., era three) whereby value is co-created across stakeholders in an effort to maximize bothcustomer and stakeholder value.

Importantly, the confluence of marketing and stakeholdermanagement can likewise be interpreted in terms of the resource-based view. Day (1994) suggests that a market-based approach tostrategy is driven by a specific set of managerial capabilities. Interms of the RBV framework, strategic capabilities such as a marketorientation can be viewed as resources that contribute to the cre-ation of sustained competitive advantage (Hooley et al., 1998;Teece, Pisano, & Schuen, 1997). Likewise, if the scope of whatconstitutes a market orientation is extended to include a widerrange of organizational stakeholders, stakeholder theory provides abasis for the explication of stakeholder relationships as a source ofsuch an advantage. Thus, by combining stakeholder theory’s posi-tion concerning the importance of external stakeholders with theRBV-based position that stakeholder relationships represent rareand inimitable resources (Dyer & Singh, 1998), advocates forstakeholder marketing are not unreasonable in suggesting that themarketing concept plays a role in the cultivation of such resources(Bhattacharya & Korschun, 2008).

The above principles of stakeholder marketing are particularlygermane to the domain of destination marketing. Because DMOscontrol very few of the resources necessary for sustaining acompetitive advantage in the overall market for destinations,managers and executives of these organizations are charged withthe difficult task of adding value to a product that is ultimatelydelivered by a broad set of autonomous external stakeholders.While a number of stakeholders have been identified within thegeneral destination marketing function, three external groupscontinually emerge as the most important destination stake-holders: customers (group and independent), industry suppliers(especially hoteliers), and politicians (e.g., Ford & Peeper, 2008;Park, Lehto, & Morrison, 2008; Sheehan & Ritchie, 2005; Sheehanet al., 2007).

Recalling the previous discussion of destination competitive-ness and resource hierarchies, we suggest that (1) if a destination’score and supporting resources represent a set of operand resourcesand (2) if the owners, suppliers, and end consumers of these re-sources represent a destination’s stakeholders, then a DMO’sorientation toward these stakeholders can be said to represent anoperant-level resource. Furthermore, because a DMO can be rela-tively more (or less) oriented toward any one stakeholder group,we suggest that a corresponding operant-level orientation shouldlikewise be acknowledged vis-à-vis each stakeholder market.Madhavaram and Hunt’s (2007) hierarchy of operant resourcesidentifies each of these individual orientations as a basic operantresource (BOR); but, like operand resources (albeit in a differentway and for different reasons), these BORs are also a relatively weaksource of sustainable advantage.

When combined, however, BORs (e.g., market-specific stake-holder orientations) form a higher-order composite operant resource(COR) (Madhavaram & Hunt, 2007). Because CORs are relativelymore difficult to acquire and/or develop, they are often a strongersource of sustainable competitive advantage than are BORs. Thus,for destination marketers, we suggest that a market orientationrepresents a capability-level, composite operant resource reflectedby three first-order, stakeholder-specific orientations: a customermarket orientation, a political market orientation, and an industrymarket orientation.

In the case of destinations, the multi-stakeholder conceptuali-zation of market orientation proposed above is positioned as theoperant resource that imbues the destinations’ core and supportingresources with utility. Thus, while a DMO may not directly control



its core and supporting resource base, it can still deploy its fixedoperand resources, via its operant capabilities, in a strategicallycompetitive manner. The degree to which competitive advantage issustained, however, depends on the extent to which marketingacross stakeholders is a part of the DMO’s strategic posture. Whilethe essence of competitive advantage is still locked in the prover-bial “black box” of RBV theory (Priem& Butler, 2001; Sirmon, Hitt, &Ireland, 2007), prior research suggests that a more tangibleoutcome of a given strategic orientation is the stock of strategicassets the organization possesses (Greenley, Hooley, & Rudd, 2005).These assets are more difficult to develop but are also a morepowerful (and sustainable) source of competitive advantage. Werefer to these as relational market-based assets. In the followingsections we develop these market-based assets conceptually andprovide an operational structure for each.

2.4. Market-based assets

Like resources, assets “enable the firm to generate and imple-ment its efficiency and effectiveness in the marketplace”(Srivastava et al., 1998, p. 4). However, assets can be distinguishedfrom resources based on their relative complexity. In general, assetsare defined as bundles of resources and capabilities that can beleveraged to gain competitive advantage (Srivastava et al., 2001).Additionally, assets typically must be generated over a period oftime (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993). Returning to Madhavaram andHunt’s (2007) hierarchy of resources, assets represent a higher-level resource resulting from the combination of multipleoperand resources, CORs, and/or BORs over time; and the moreassets are bundled together, the more sustainable is the resultantcompetitive advantage (Runyan, Finnegan, Gonzalez-Padron, &Line, 2013).

Returning to the opening discussion, Fig. 1 synthesizes the dis-tinctions among a destination’s core/supporting operand resources,operant resources/capabilities, and assets adopted in the currentresearch endeavor. As discussed, operand resources are assumed tobe heterogeneous across destinations. For destinations, such re-sources may be tangible or intangible and include the natural/historically based resource endowments of the destination; theclimate; the physical infrastructure; the local culture (particularlyits acceptance of visitors); and the individual skills and knowledgeof the tourism industry stakeholders in the destination. Althoughthese resources are beyond the direct control of the DMO, they canstill be leveraged to create competitive advantages when deployedin tandem with the appropriate operant resource(s) (Madhavaram& Hunt, 2007). As seen in Fig. 1, the combination of customer, po-litical, and industry orientations forms a composite operantresource, and when this COR is deployed in coordination with adestination’s operand resources, the result is a bundling of re-sources and capabilities with a higher net potential for the con-ference of sustainable competitive advantage. This is the definitionof a market-based asset.

Like resources and capabilities, assets can be grouped accordingto the functional source of their origination (e.g., organizational,financial, legal, marketing, etc.) (Hooley et al., 1998). Though anumber of asset categories have been identified, applications ofRBV in the field of marketing research have emphasized theimportance of market-based assets in particular. Market-basedassets represent a distinct type of strategic asset that “arise(s)from the commingling of the firm with entities in its externalenvironment” (Srivastava et al., 1998, p. 2). Although these assetsare largely intangible, their rare and inimitable nature affords thema potentially enhanced ability to facilitate a sustainable competitiveadvantage. This potential is realized through the organization’sability to co-create value through stakeholder marketing via a

DMO’s marketing capabilities (i.e., a market orientation). Thesecapabilities can be seen as the “glue” that binds operand resourcestogether (Day, 1994) to ultimately form the more strategicallyvaluable market-based assets. When these core resources arebound together in this way, the bundling effect provides thefoundation for a resource-based competitive advantage that mayotherwise not be achieved (Madhavaram & Hunt, 2007).

2.5. Relational market-based assets

Relational market-based assets are defined as the “outcomes ofthe relationship between a firm and key external stakeholdersincluding distributors, retailers, end customers, other strategicpartners, community groups and even government agencies”(Srivastava et al., 1998, p. 5). Within the proposed framework, amarket orientation represents the antecedent condition on whichsuch “outcomes” are based, while relational market-based assetsrepresent the outcomes themselves. However, because (1) multipletypes of market-based assets exist (Hooley et al., 1998) and (2)organizations vary in their orientations across stakeholder markets(Greenley et al., 2005), three distinct types of market-based assetsare proposed (customer-based assets, industry-based assets, andpolitically based assets) each of which is derived from a DMO’srelationship with a specific stakeholder market.

2.5.1. Customer-based assetsCustomer-based assets arise from positive relationships be-

tween an organization and its end-consumers or customers(Greenley et al., 2005; Hooley et al., 1998). Accordingly, customer-based marketing assets are often discussed under the auspices ofrelationship marketing (Sheth, Sisodia, & Sharma, 2000; Srivastavaet al., 2001). For example, Doyle’s (2001) examples of customer-based marketing assets include market knowledge, brand aware-ness, customer loyalty, and strategic relationships. Similarly, Urde(1999) addresses the specific potential for a brand to be devel-oped into a strategic asset. Taking a more fine-grained approach,Greenley et al. (2005) distinguish customer-based assets such asbrand-awareness, firm reputation, and customer relationships fromalliance-based assets such as market access and access to strategicpartners’ resources.

Within the context of DMOs, customer-based assets such ascrafting a differentiable destination image (Hankinson, 2005) andmaintaining positive relationships with customers (Pike, Murdy, &Lings, 2011) are increasingly being attributed to what the presentresearch defines as market-oriented behaviors. Other desirablecustomer-based assets such as loyalty and repeat visitation are alsolikely to rely on the extent to which a DMO keeps up with changingneeds and preferences of its target markets (Pike et al., 2011). Assuch, activities geared toward better understanding and satisfyingvisitor needs likely play an important role in the development of asustained competitive advantage. Thus:

Proposition 1. Customer-based assets represent a unique set ofstrategic marketing assets arising from the commingling of a DMOwith its visitor stakeholder markets.

2.5.2. Alliance-based assetsIn contrast to customer-based marketing assets, alliance-based

marketing assets reflect relationships among the organizationsthat make up what Sheehan et al. (2007) refer to as the destinationpromotion triad (DMOs, industry suppliers, and local govern-ments). In accordance with this framework, two types of alliance-based marketing assets are proposed: industry-based assets andpolitically based assets. While these specific types of alliance-basedassets are unique to destination marketing (Palmer & Bejou, 1995),



they are, in many ways, analogous to existing conceptualizations ofalliance-based assets in the general business literature. Forexample, Hooley et al. (1998) discuss alliance-based assets in termsof networks and alliances. Such assets include market access,knowledge sharing, and access to financial resources (Greenleyet al., 2005). Similarly, Kandemir, Yaprak, and Cavusgil (2006)operationalize an alliance network performance construct. Unfor-tunately, while these constructs have been validated in generalmarketing contexts, neither construct sufficiently captures theunique complexities of destination marketing.

Unlike customer-based marketing assets that can be attributedto understanding customers and competitors, a DMO’s alliance-based marketing assets arise out of interactions with its industryand political stakeholders. As such, the destination promotion triad(Sheehan et al., 2007) can be viewed as a de facto cross-sectionalalliance between the DMO, the local government, and thetourism industry (also see Wang & Xiang, 2007). Accordingly, eachDMO has two potential alliance partners and a distinct relationshipwith each partner. These relationships are the basis for the devel-opment of two types of alliance-based assets, one reflecting aDMO’s relationship with its local government and another reflect-ing its relationship with the local tourism industry.

Politically based assets refer to those assets that accrue to a DMOas a result of the ability of its managers to maintain favorable re-lationships with the politicians responsible for allocating tax dol-lars to the organization. The degree to which a DMO successfullymarkets itself to its community and the politicians who representthat community can have a major impact on the level of politicalsupport the DMO receives (Destination & Travel Foundation &Revent LLC, 2011; Gretzel, Fesenmaier, Formica, & O’Leary, 2006).Without continuously communicating the value of their organiza-tions to the local community/government, DMOs risk losing thesupport of the politicians that fund their organizations (DestinationMarketing Association International Foundation & Karl AlbrechtInternational, 2008; Gretzel et al., 2006). In addition to losingfunds, adverse government regulation and policy decisions can alsoseverely hamper a DMO’s ability to fulfill its mission (Ford & Peeper,2008). By contrast, with a strong advocacy platform, DMOs can helpto ensure that when funding and policy decisions are made, thesedecisions are considered in terms of the potential impact on thelocal tourism industry and the DMO. The importance of the politicalstakeholder market to destination marketing suggests that:

Proposition 2. Politically based assets represent a unique set ofstrategic marketing assets arising from the commingling of a DMOwith its political stakeholder markets.

A second type of alliance-based marketing asset arises from thecommingling of the DMO with entities in the local tourism in-dustry. Industry-based assets are defined here as those assets thataccrue to a DMO as a result of its ability to maintain favorable re-lationships with and among local tourism businesses. In addition toallying directly with its industry suppliers, DMOs must also facili-tate a cooperative environment among the providers of their des-tination’s tourism product (Fyall & Garrod, 2005). According to a2008 survey of DMO CEOs, building partnerships among localstakeholders was one of the most commonly reported valuepropositions that CEOs wanted to be associated with their organi-zations (DMAIF & Karl Albrecht International, 2008). Thus, forDMOs the goal is not to ally with any one firm per se, but to promotean atmosphere of cooperation among all tourism firms in itsjurisdiction by building a consensus for its value proposition. Inthese terms, industry support for the firm’s mission can also beseen as a type of alliance-based asset to the extent that thenumerous (and often competing) firms in the local tourism in-dustry cooperate for the good of the destination as a whole. Thus:

Proposition 3. Industry-based assets represent a unique set ofstrategic marketing assets arising from the commingling of a DMOwith its industry stakeholder markets.

Together, Propositions 1e3 suggest the existence of a specificandmeasurable set of assets that correspond to each of the primarystakeholder markets toward which a DMO may be oriented. Theseassets can be seen as the outcomes of a DMO’s ability to leveragestakeholder relationships to act upon a destination’s operand re-sources to create value and ultimately become a source of sus-tainable competitive advantage. In order to develop a full nomologyof this process, however, an operational approach to the mea-surement of these constructs is essential.

3. Methods

In order to test the propositions developed in the previoussection, three constructs were developed, each reflecting the assetsinherent to a specific stakeholder market. According to Churchill’s(1979) methodology, the first step in the process for developingmarketing constructs is specification of a construct’s domain via anin-depth review of the literature for the purposes of defining theconstruct(s) of interest. Having specified the domain of strategicdestination marketing assets in the previous section, the remainingsteps in Churchill’s construct development process are discussed asfollows.

3.1. Generation of sample items

The second step in the construct development process is thegeneration of a sample of items reflective of the phenomenon inquestion as specified by its theoretical domain and correspondingconceptual definition. Churchill (1979) provides several examplesof productive techniques for generating items including discussiongroups, expert interviews, and reviews of academic and practi-tioner literature. All of these techniques were employed in theoperational explication of market-based assets. Table 1 provides adescription of the techniques used for item generation.

To begin, items reflective of customer- and alliance-based assetswere drawn from existing operationalizations of conceptuallysimilar constructs (e.g., Greenley et al.’s, 2005 operational classifi-cation of marketing assets and Kandemir et al.’s, 2006 operation-alization of alliance network performance). Each existing item wasreviewed for face validity as well as the degree to which its overallstructure was methodologically sound (e.g., no double-barreledquestions, ambiguous wording, etc.). The initially generated list ofitems was then modified according to the process outlined inTable 1. Because changes were made to the running list of itemsreviewed in each successive step, the wording of items in the finallist was often quite different from the original source. However,each time a modification was made, the new itemwas reviewed toensure that it still tapped the appropriate conceptual domain.

A particularly important part of the item generation phase wasthe insights generated from conducting interviews with experts inthe field of destination marketing. In order to ensure that itemsgenerated to measure the aforementioned latent constructs wererelevant to the practice of destination marketing (Lindell &Whitney, 2001), a series of interviews were conducted with DMOmanagers and executives in a southeastern U.S. state for whichtourism is recognized as the second largest revenue producing in-dustry. Participants (and interview content) were selected inaccordancewith the tenets of theoretical sampling (Glaser, 1978) soas to ensure a sufficiently broad representation of the phenomenainherent to the proposed constructs. The interviews were semi-structured and were conducted in the tradition of the long



interview (McCracken, 1988). When applicable, grand tour inter-view techniques were also employed (Spradley, 1979). Interviewdata were transcribed and subsequently analyzed to identifyrecurring themes within each construct’s conceptual domain(Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

The interviewdatawere then used to furthermodify the runninglist of items and to determine the extent to which new items wouldneed to be added to each scale so as to sufficiently cover therespective conceptual domains of each construct. For example,while Greenley et al. (2005) was a logical starting point for gener-ating items reflective of customer- and alliance-based marketingassets, many of Greenley et al.’s (2005) original items were notcontextually valid to the domain of destination marketing. Theiroperationalization of alliance-based assets, for example, includesitems measuring “access to strategic partner’s managerial know-how and expertise” and “shared technology”, neither of whichappropriately reflect the domain of politically based assets in thefield of destination marketing. Because the existing items weredeemed theoretically irrelevant, it became necessary to developnew items appropriate to the domain of destination marketing. Byattending to the emergent themes from the professional interviews,new items could be crafted in such a way as to remain consistentwith the previously discussed conceptual domain of market-basedassets in general, and alliance-based assets in particular. This pro-cess was followed for all three proposed constructs.

3.2. Pretest

The next step in the construct development process is to reduce(or purify) the list of items generated in the previous steps via apretest of the questionnaire on a subset of the intended populationfromwhich the final sample will be taken. In order to pilot test themeasures, a survey was posted in three discussion forums (theMarketing Forum, the Research Forum, and the General TopicsForum) on the website of the main trade organization for thedestination marketing industry, Destination Marketing AssociationInternational (DMAI). Following the process outlined by Dillman,Smyth, and Christian (2009), the opportunity to complete thesurvey was posted three times with two week intervals betweenpostings. As an incentive to complete the survey, respondents weregiven the opportunity to enter into a drawing to win a $200 Visagift card.

The pretest data were used to assess the internal consistency ofthe measurement items and to test the factor structure of eachlatent construct. Internal consistency was measured via anassessment of Cronbach’s alpha, which measures how well a set ofgenerated items reflects a construct’s domain (Peter, 1979). Thereliability of individual measurement items was tested via an ex-amination of the change in alpha when each item was deleted.Items causing alpha to drop below .7were reviewed for face validityand, if deemed outside of the construct’s domain, were notincluded in the final measurement instrument (Nunnally, 1967).

Upon establishing internal consistency for each construct, factoranalyses were conducted in order to assess the underlying factorstructure. Items reflective of each construct were analyzed via aprincipal components analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation. Theresults of this analysis were used to further reduce the potentialmeasurement items for each construct using the cutoff criteriarecommended by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006).In total, six items were deleted. Of the remaining 21 items, 20 metHair et al.’s (2006) factor loading criteria for practical significance(.5). The sole item not meeting this criterion met the minimumstandard for inclusion (.3). Following the initial reduction, a secondPCA was then conducted, resulting in a three-factor solutionexplaining 55.5% of the variance in the model. Upon completion ofthe pretest data analysis, the purified list of items was thencompiled into a new survey instrument to be used in final stage ofdata collection.

3.3. Data collection

Like the data collected for the pretest, the data used for prop-osition testing were collected from a sample of destination mar-keting executives and managers. However, unlike the pretest, dataused for testing the propositions were collected via a mail survey(see Dillman et al., 2009). The list of measurement items wereorganized into a hard-copy survey, and mailed to sample of 600DMO executives in 28 randomly selected U.S. states along with aself-addressed, postage-paid return envelope. The sample wasdrawn from a database of 1200 U.S.-based DMOs of varying size andorganizational structure. Due to resource constraints, only half thedatabase was sampled. Rather than spreading out the 600 sampledorganizations across all 50 states, 25 states were randomly selected,and the DMOs from those states in the database were included in

Table 1Domain specification and item generation.

Technique Description Outcome

Lit. review: Academic Numerous scholarly articles reviewed in the fields of marketing, strategy,management, and tourism

Domain specification

Lit. review: Trade and Industry Numerous industry handbooks reviewed including: DMAI Advocacy Toolkit;2008 DMAI survey of DMO CEOs; DMAI Standard Performance ReportingHandbook; Yearly profile reports of DMOs

Domain specification

Review of existing scales Items from existing scales reviewed for face validity within the context ofspecified domains. When necessary, existing items were adapted so asto reflect each construct as specified

Item generation

Discussion group One marketing professor and four Ph.D. candidates reviewed the initial listof items for face validity, structure, and relevance to specified domain

Items revised; Items added

Discussion group New list reviewed based on input from first discussion group and additionalreview of literature

Items revised

Expert interview First depth interview conducted with a destination marketing professional(25 years experience)


Expert review of items List of items compiled into survey form: Two destination marketing professionalsat the 2011 NTA conference were asked to take this survey and provide verbalinterpretations of the items as they responded


Discussion group Survey modified based on expert feedback and resubmitted to discussion group Items revisedExpert interviews Seven additional interviews conducted per process outlined in body of text Items revised; Items addedPretest Internet survey consisting of all generated items. Posted in 3 DMAI discussion

board forums (n¼ 27).Items revised; Items deleted



the sample. Because the total number of organizations in the 25state sampling frame did not reach the full 600 organizationssought for this study, additional states were added to the sampleuntil the total number of organizations reached 600. This broughtthe total number of states sampled to 28.

Because the unit of analysis for this research is the organization,only one respondent per organization was asked to complete thesurvey. As an incentive to complete the survey, a newly minted $1gold coin was affixed to the cover letter explaining the surveyprocess. Additionally, participants were given the option to requestan executive summary of the findings. A total of 106 surveys werereturned in the two weeks following the initial mailing (17.7%response rate).

The initial mailing was followed by two subsequent mailings.Two weeks after the first survey was mailed, a follow-up postcardwas sent to non-respondents reminding them of the opportunity toparticipate in the research and advising them that another copy ofthe survey would bemailed to them in twoweeks time. In responseto the postcard mailing, another 54 responses were received. Twoweeks after the postcard was sent, a second copy of the survey anda modified cover letter were mailed to the remaining non-respondents. The new cover letter indicated that no future mail-ings would be received. In the four weeks following the finalmailing, 62 responses were received bringing the respondent totalto 222 (for an overall response rate of 37.0%). Information per-taining to the respondents and their organizations can be seen inTable 2.

Because of the rigor of the data collection process, missing datain returned questionnaires was extremely rare. Of the 3774 relevantpoints of data returned, only 10 entries were missing. Because

missing values represented a mere .002% of the data collected,missing values were imputed according to the series mean.

3.4. Common method biases

Throughout the scale development and data collection pro-cesses, care was taken to minimize the potential effects of mea-surement error attributable to the methodology and not the trueparticipant scores of the latent phenomena under investigation.First, several techniques were employed to minimize the incidenceof common rater effects (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,2003). The survey length was kept to a minimum to reduce thepotential effects of transient mood states. Potential acquiescenceissues were addressed by inserting reverse coded items into thesurvey to ensure that respondents would not simply revert to“agreeing” with questions before carefully reading item content(Dillman et al., 2009; Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Second, care was taken to reduce biases resulting from specificproperties of the items themselves. Most importantly, each itemwas carefully constructed based on the content of the expert in-terviews discussed in the previous section. This process helped toensure that the content of each item was presented in an unam-biguous manner and expressed in terminology appropriate to thepopulation of interest (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). Additionally, eachsection of the questionnaire began with an identification of keyterms relevant to each item block to further achieve a maximumlevel of item comprehension on behalf of the respondent (Lindell &Whitney, 2001).

A final source of potential bias inherent to all forms of sample-based data collection is attributable to the possibility that thosewho respond to a survey are significantly different than those whodo not respond. The data collection process was designed so that anestimate of non-response bias could be obtained (Armstrong &Overton, 1977). Each time a survey was returned, the responsewas immediately coded relative to the corresponding data collec-tion round (i.e., each responsewas coded as either a one, a two, or athree). These groups were then used to conduct a series of inde-pendent sample t-tests to determine the extent towhich themeansof early respondents were significantly different than those of thelater respondents. These tests were conducted for all observedvariables.

With respect to the three respondent groups, all pairwisecomparisons were analyzed. First, response group one wascompared with response group two. Finding no significant differ-ence between these two groups (p> .05), response group two wasthen compared with response group three. Again, no significantdifferences were identified in the mean structure between the tworespondent groups (p> .05). Finally, response group one wascompared with response group three (a between-group responselag of one month). The differences between these two groups werealso insignificant across all variable comparisons (p> .05). Thefailure to identify significant differences across the respondentcategories suggests that the incidence of non-response bias in thedata collection process was minimized.

3.5. Results

The data collected in the final sample were submitted to checksof both reliability and construct validity. Upon establishing internalconsistency of the measures (Cronbach’s a), confirmatory factoranalyses (CFAs) were conducted in order to verify the factorstructure of each construct and to assess convergent and discrim-inant validity. In the first step of the analysis, all constructs weresubjected to individual CFAs. For each first-order construct, aninitial CFA was conducted with all measurement items specified as

Table 2Organizational/respondent information.

Characteristic n %

Destination descriptionSingle city 73 33.0All cities in a single county 89 40.3Selected cities in a single county 23 10.4A multiple county region 33 14.9No response 5 2.3

Business models/governance structuresGovernment body 55 24.9Government/private co-venture 37 16.7Government funding plus paying members 63 28.5Member supported with no government funds 11 5.0Other 50 22.6No response 7 3.2

Conference or convention center in destinationNo 99 44.8Currently planning/building one 7 3.2Yes, but not managed by our DMO 90 40.7Yes, managed by our DMO 21 9.5No response 6 2.7

Full-time employees0e5 114 51.66e10 47 21.311e15 19 8.616e35 21 9.536 or more 13 5.9No response 9 4.1

Respondent role in DMOCEO/President/Executive Director 174 78.7Other 41 18.6No response 8 3.6

State Breakdown: AL-5, FL-2, GA-12, MN-7, MO-9, MS-5, MT-4, NC-12, ND-5, NE-3,NJ-1, NM-1, NV-3, NY-7, OH-21, OK-7, OR-22, PA-18, SC-4, SD-3, TN-11, TX-24, UT-1,VA-12, WA-1, WI-8, WV-10, WY-1.



reflective indicators of the proposed latent factor. Based on theoverall fit and analyses of the standardized regression estimates,items were deleted from each specification in a stepwisemanner toidentify the effect of the omitted items on the fit of the model. Eachtime an item was deleted, a chi-square difference test was con-ducted to assess changes in model fit resulting from the inclusion/omission of that item. When the deletion of an item resulted in asignificant increase in model fit, the better fitting model wasadopted, and the omitted item was not included in subsequentanalyses. As a result of this final purification, a further 8 items wereomitted from further analysis. The resulting factor structure alongwith the means and standard deviations of the final set of mea-surement items can be seen in Table 3.

Next, in order to test for full construct validity (i.e., convergentand discriminant validity), average variance extracted (AVE) wascalculated in the manner advocated by Fornell and Larcker (1981).Table 4 shows the critical ratio (CR), AVE, maximum shared squaredvariance (MSV), and average shared squared variance (ASV) foreach construct. The correlation matrix (with the square root of AVEon the inter-construct diagonal) is also provided. For all variables,CR>AVE> 0.5, providing strong evidence of convergent validityfor each construct in the model (Hair et al., 2006). Additionally, theAVE for each construct is greater than both the ASV and MSV withno two constructs correlating over .5. These results provide strongevidence of discriminant validity among the constructs (Hair et al.,2006).

Finally, in order to test the overall proposition that all three first-order constructs are reflective of the same underlying latent factor,a second-order market-based assets construct was specified. Thesecond-order specification included a total of 32 parameters. UsingKline’s (2005) convention of a minimum of 5e6 observations perparameter, the size of the data sample (n¼ 222) is likely not asource of bias in either the second-order specification or themeasurement model that was specified to calculate AVE. Thesecond-order specification (a¼ .85), was a relatively good fit to thedata (c2¼129.7, df¼ 62 [c2/df (CMIN)¼ 2.093]; RMSEA¼ .071;CFI¼ .947; TLI¼ .933) with all standardized regression estimatessignificant (p< .001) and positive as proposed.

In summary of the results, the analysis of data collected frommore than 220 DMO’s with widely varying organizational charac-teristics suggests that a unique set of stakeholder-based destinationmarketing assets exists across the organizational spectrum. The

empirical support for the proposition of this construct and itsdimensional structure has the potential to affect both the theoryand practice of destination marketing in several important ways. Inthe following section, potential implications of these findings arediscussed.

4. Discussion

In a general sense, the value of this research lies in the inte-gration of RBV’s exogenous notion of value creation with theendogenous notion of competitive advantage championed by theproponents of stakeholder marketing and the service-dominantlogic. However, our research makes a more specific contributionto tourism scholarship by situating the explanation of this theo-retical intersection within the unique contexts of the destinationmarketing environment. Thus, perhaps most importantly, thisresearch can be seen as a starting point for the further explorationof these well-established theoretical frameworks within thedomain of destination marketing. As follows, we discuss the im-plications of such a trajectory for tourism scholarship providingexamples of potentially important avenues for future research.

The most significant contribution of this research is the devel-opment of a new construct for the empirical investigation of bothRBV- and SBL-based conceptual frameworks from a tourismperspective. Currently, the dearth of empirically measurableorganization-level constructs in the field of destination marketingresearch has rendered the formation of strategically basedconstruct nomologies essentially impossible; and because theadvancement of theory rests on the development of sound con-structs (Summers, 2001), the absence of quantitatively measurableconstructs has hindered the progression of tourism theory. Con-trasting this to the abundance of organizational constructs found inthe management and marketing literature and the theoretical

Table 3Measurement scale properties: first-order specifications.

Constructs and indicators Mean Std. dev. Std. est. p

Customer-based assets (CBA) (a¼ .86) 5.17 1.27 a1.69 b.056CBA1: Our destination has a distinct brand image. (c.684) 5.43 1.62 0.74 <.001CBA2: Our destination’s brand is an important part of the reason that organized groups come to our area. (c.737) 4.83 1.64 0.83 <.001CBA3: Our destination’s brand is an important part of the reason that independent travelers come to our area. (c.810) 5.23 1.64 0.91 <.001CBA4: Our community is a well-established tourism destination. (c.641) 4.66 1.73 0.67 <.001CBA5: Upon visiting our destination, independent visitors are likely to revisit our destination in the future. (c.544) 5.70 1.23 0.57 <.001

Industry-based assets (IBA) (a¼ .81) 5.04 1.12 a.90 b.000IBA1: The local tourism industry appreciates our organization’s contribution to the local economy. (c.541) 5.78 1.19 0.60 <.001IBA2: Tourism businesses in our destination cooperate with each other to access new markets. (c.662) 4.45 1.50 0.75 <.001IBA3: Tourism businesses in our destination share a common vision for our destination. (c.706) 4.79 1.52 0.82 <.001IBA4: Tourism businesses in our destination share a commitment to providing quality customer service. (c.602) 5.14 1.39 0.68 <.001

Politically based assets (PBA) (a¼ .84) 4.93 1.32 a1.93 b.065PBA1: Funding our organization is a priority for our politicians. (c.544) 3.95 1.81 0.58 <.001PBA2: The local government appreciates our organization’s contribution to the local economy. (c.718) 5.59 1.46 0.84 <.001PBA3: The local government understands the importance of tourism to our local economy. (c.731) 5.39 1.54 0.84 <.001PBA4: Our local government considers the impact that new legislation may have on our organization’s

ability to achieve its mission. (c.704)4.80 1.61 0.78 <.001

a c2/df.b RMSEA.c Corrected item-total correlation.

Table 4Validity assessment criteria and correlation matrix.

CR AVE MSV ASV PBA IBA CBA

PBA 0.867 0.569 0.219 0.128 0.754a

IBA 0.812 0.522 0.219 0.186 0.468 0.722a

CBA 0.865 0.568 0.154 0.096 0.194 0.392 0.754a

a Square root of AVE.



advancements that have been achieved via their empirical mea-surement, it is likely that tourism research could gain from thedevelopment of a similar bevy of valid and reliable organizationalconstructs. Operationally defining market-based assets is a firststep in this direction.

In addition to the intrinsic theoretical value of this research, thedevelopment of marketing- and management-based tourism con-structs (such as themarket-based assets construct conceptualized inthis research) would also contribute to practical destination mar-keting. As previously discussed, destination marketers are increas-ingly searching for ways to remain both relevant and competitive inthe contemporary marketing environment (DMAIF & Karl AlbrechtInternational, 2008; Gretzel et al., 2006). The development of aunique theory of destination marketing, replete with measurableconstructs and empirically testable hypotheses, would providedistinctive insight into these issues and their potential solutions. Thepresent research suggests that the classical notions of firm perfor-mance espoused in the resource-based view of the firm combinedwith the contemporary perspectives of the service-dominant logicand stakeholder marketing are a worthwhile place to start.

In terms of strategic planning, the connection between operandand operant resources advocated in this research suggests thatDMOs should focus on creating higher order, composite operantresources. Because the creation of sustainable competitive advan-tages is a complex inter-organizational process, all members of thedestination promotion triad (Sheehan et al., 2007) should recognizethat many operand resources within a tourist destination areneither rare nor unique enough to endow competitive advantage inisolation. As such, stakeholders must allow (and provide supportfor) the DMO to acquire and develop its own composite resourcebase. These may take the form of knowledge, skills, organizationalculture, or experience.

Additionally, the market-based assets scale may serve as a toolfor DMOs to measure their own success in creating the sort ofcomposite operant resources that can imbue independently ownedoperand resources with utility. Similarly, this instrument could beused to identify areas of potential improvement when it comes tostakeholder marketing. For example, if a destination is unsuccess-fully competingwith another destination on the same type operandresource base (e.g., sun and sand), could an enhanced politicalorientation potentially be a way to address this competitive imbal-ance? Would a stronger set of political market-based assets help toget a bond issue through to improve local infrastructure?Or,would astronger set of industry-based assets, characterized by collaborativemarketing initiatives, increase demand for the destination?

In sum, our theoretical framework demonstrates howpreviouslyidentified issues within the destination marketing literature, oftenportrayed as separate and difficult to connect, can (and should) beconnected from a strategic perspective. In terms of the RBV, thedestination resources controlled by privately owned hospitality andtourism firms are not necessarily valuable in the aggregate. In orderfor a destination to be successful, DMOs must leverage these re-sources appropriately. Likewise, in terms of the SDL, our frameworksuggests that the successful DMO is one that can bring to bear itsoperant resources to leverage those operand resources it does notcontrol. Our research provides destination marketers with aframework and an operational approach to this process.

With an operationalized scale to measure market-based assets,scholars may now conduct empirical research into causal re-lationships ex ante and post hoc acquisition and/or deployment ofthese assets. Understanding these relationships would help toanswer a number of important questions raised by the presentresearch. For example, concerning leadership, does changing di-rectors and/or overall strategic focus towards a market orientationlead to stronger alliances with tourism-focused firms and thus

improved performance? Are some market-based assets moreimportant than others in maintaining the relationships inherent tothe destination promotion triad? How does the deployment of (forexample) political market-based assets affect performance whendeployed in conjunctionwith weak customermarket-based assets?Can highly developed DMO-level operant resources make up forless highly refined (or weaker) operand resources at the destinationor firm levels? We believe that these are all research questionsheretofore not empirically addressable, but are now quantifiablevia the market-based asset scale developed herein.

4.1. Limitations

One of the most significant limitations of this study is that whilethe analyses suggest preliminary evidence of convergent anddiscriminant validity, we stop short of assessing the nomologicalvalidity of the market-based assets construct. Recalling Fig. 1, theimplications of the proposed RBV- and SDL-based framework arethat market-based destination marketing assets result from amarket-oriented approach to destination marketing and are ante-cedent to organizational performance. However, these are propo-sitions that must be formally hypothesized and empirically tested.Thus, an essential area of future research is the exploration of theseand other constructs that either affect or are affected by a DMO’smarket-based asset structure. Such researchwould lend strength tothe construct from a validity standpoint as well as contribute to thecontinued advancement of tourism theory.

A second limitation of this research is attributable to samplepopulation. Because the scope of this research includes only city-and county-level destination marketing organizations, the con-structs developed herein should not be unduly generalized outsideof these contexts. That is, while the measurement items are contentvalid within the context of the sample population, these items mayneed to revised, and the construct dimensionality reviewed, beforeconsidering the phenomenon at a state or national level. Addi-tionally, because DMOs vary in roles and organizational structureinternationally, the constructs developed in this research should betested for cross-cultural measurement invariance before they areapplied outside of the United States.

4.2. Conclusion

The purpose of this researchwas to enhance extant perspectivesof destination competitiveness by considering destination mar-keting from the dual theoretical lenses of the service-dominantlogic and the resource-based view of the firm. The result was thedevelopment of a multidimensional construct reflecting the oper-ant nature of strategically valuable destination marketing re-sources. Although the present endeavor represents only a smallstep toward a more complete theoretical understanding of desti-nation marketing, it is the hope of the researchers that thiscontributionwill stimulate further consideration of the importanceof construct development in this process.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Dr. Youcheng Wang for hisassistance in the data collection phase of this project.

References

Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent.Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33e46.

Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail sur-veys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396e402.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39(4), 32e39.



Baraldi, E., Gressetvold, E., & Harrison, D. (2012). Resource interaction in inter-organizational networks: foundations, comparison, and a research agenda.Journal of Business Research, 65, 266e276.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm-resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal ofManagement, 17(1), 99e120.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2008). Stakeholder marketing: beyond the fourPs and the customer. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27(1), 113e116.

Bornhorst, T., Ritchie, J. R. B., & Sheehan, L. (2010). Determinants of tourism successfor DMOs & destinations: an empirical examination of stakeholders’ perspec-tives. Tourism Management, 31(5), 572e589.

Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketingconstructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64e73.

Constantin, J. A., & Lusch, R. F. (1994). Understanding resource management. Oxford,OH: The Planning Forum.

Crook, T. R., Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., & Todd, S. Y. (2008). Strategic resources andperformance: a meta-analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), 1141e1154.

Crouch, G. I. (2011). Destination competitiveness: an analysis of determinant at-tributes. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 27e45.

Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Mar-keting, 58(4), 37e52.

Destination Marketing Association International Foundation (DMAIF), & KarlAlbrecht International. (2008). The future of destination marketing: tradition,transition, and transformation.

Destination & Travel Foundation, & Revent LLC. (2011). The DMO advocacy toolkit: aresource for destination marketing organizations.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-modesurveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation:concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 29(1),65e91.

Doyle, P. (2001). Value-based marketing. Chichester: Wiley.Dwyer, L., Mellor, R., Livaic, Z., Edwards, D., & Kim, C. (2004). Attributes of desti-

nation competitiveness: a factor analysis. Tourism Analysis, 9(1/2), 91e101.Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources

of interorganizational comparative advantage. Academy of Management Journal,23(4), 660e679.

Enright, M. J., & Newton, J. (2004). Tourism destination competitiveness: a quan-titative approach. Tourism Management, 25, 777e788.

Ferrell, O. C., Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., Hult, T. M., & Maignan, I. (2010). From mar-keting orientation to stakeholder orientation. Journal of Public Policy & Mar-keting, 29(1), 93e96.

Ford, R. C., & Peeper, W. C. (2008).Managing destination marketing organizations: Thetasks, roles and responsibilities of the convention and visitors bureau. Orlando:ForPer Publications.

Ford, R. C., Wang, Y., & Vestal, A. (2012). Power asymmetries in tourism networks.Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 755e779.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluation structural equation models with un-observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 28,39e50.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA:Pitman.

Fyall, A., & Garrod, B. (2005). Tourism marketing: A collaborative approach. Tona-wanda, NY: Channel View Publications.

Gartrell, R. B. (1992). Convention and visitor bureau: current issues in managementand marketing. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 1(2), 71e78.

Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.Greenley, G. E., Hooley, G. J., & Rudd, J. M. (2005). Market orientation in a multiple

stakeholder orientation context: implications for marketing capabilities andassets. Journal of Business Research, 58(11), 1483e1494.

Gretzel, U., Fesenmaier, D. R., Formica, S., & O’Leary, J. T. (2006). Searching for thefuture: challenges faced by destination marketing organizations. Journal ofTravel Research, 45(2), 116e126.

Gundlach, G. T., & Wilkie, W. L. (2010). Stakeholder marketing: why “stakeholder”was omitted from the American Marketing Association’s official 2007 definitionof marketing and why the future is bright for stakeholder marketing. Journal ofPublic Policy and Marketing, 29(1), 89e92.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson PrenticeHall.

Hankinson, G. (2005). Destination brand images: a business tourism perspective.Journal of Services Marketing, 19(1), 24e32.

Hooley, G. J., Broderick, A. J., & Möller, K. (1998). Competitive positioning and theresource-based view of the firm. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6(2), 97e115.

Hunt, S. D. (1976). The nature and scope of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 40(3),17e28.

Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of compe-tition. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 1e15.

Kandemir, D., Yaprak, A., & Cavusgil, S. (2006). Alliance orientation: conceptuali-zation, measurement, and impact on market performance. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 324e340.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, researchpropositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1e18.

Kotler, P. (1972). A generic concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 36(2), 46e54.

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method vari-ance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology,86(1), 114e121.

Lusch, R. F. (2007). Marketing’s evolving identity: defining our future. Journal ofPublic Policy & Marketing, 26, 261e268.

Lusch, R. F., & Webster, F. E., Jr. (2011). A stakeholder-unifying, co-creation philos-ophy for marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 31(2), 129e134.

Madhavaram, S., & Hunt, S. D. (2007). The service-dominant logic and a hier-archy of operant resources: developing masterful operant resources andimplications for marketing strategy. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 36(1), 67e82.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Murphy, P. E., & Murphy, A. E. (2004). Strategic management for tourism commu-

nities: bridging the gaps. Tonawanda, NY: Channel View Publications.Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business

profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20e35.Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Palmer, A., & Bejou, D. (1995). Tourism destination marketing alliances. Annals of

Tourism Research, 22(3), 619e629.Park, O. J., Lehto, X. Y., & Morrison, A. M. (2008). Collaboration between CVB and

local community in destination marketing: CVB executives’ perspective. Journalof Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 17(3-4), 395e417.

Peter, J. P. (1979). Reliability: a review of psychometric basics and recent marketingpractices. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 6e17.

Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-basedview. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179e191.

Pike, S., Murdy, S., & Lings, I. (2011). Visitor relationship orientation of destinationmarketing organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 50(4), 443e453.

Pike, S., & Page, S. J. (2014). Destination marketing organizations and destinationmarketing: a narrative analysis of the literature. Tourism Management, 41, 202e227.

Pike, S., & Ryan, C. (2004). Destination positioning analysis through a comparison ofcognitive, affective, and conative perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, 42,333e342.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Commonmethod biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature andrecommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879e903.

Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspectivefor strategic management research? The Academy of Management Review, 26(1),22e40.

Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainabletourism perspective. Trowbridge, UK: CABI.

Runyan, R. C., Finnegan, C., Gonzalez-Padron, T., & Line, N. D. (2013). Publishingproductivity for pre-tenure marketing faculty: uncovering drivers usingresource-advantage theory. Marketing Education Review, 23(2), 105e120.

Sheehan, L. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). Destination stakeholders: exploring identityand salience. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 711e734.

Sheehan, L., Ritchie, J. R. B., & Hudson, S. (2007). The destination promotion triad:understanding asymmetric stakeholder interdependencies among, hotels, andDMO. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 64e74.

Sheth, J. N., Sisodia, R. S., & Sharma, A. (2000). The antecedents and consequences ofcustomer-centric marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1),55e66.

Sirmon, D., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamicenvironments to create value: looking inside the black box. Academy of Man-agement Review, 32, 273e292.

Smith, N. G., Drumwright, M. E., & Gentile, M. C. (2010). The new marketing myopia.Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 29(1), 4e11.

Spradley, J. R. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.

Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Christensen, H. K. (2001). The resource-based view andmarketing: the role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage.Journal of Management, 27(6), 777e802.

Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., & Fahey, L. (1998). Market-based assets andshareholder value: a framework for analysis. Journal of Marketing, 62(1),2e18.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Summers, J. O. (2001). Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in mar-keting: From conceptualization through the review process. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 29(4), 405e415.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Schuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategicmanagement. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509e533.

Urde, M. (1999). Brand orientation: a mindset for building brands into strategicresources. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1-3), 117e133.

Usakli, A., & Baloglu, S. (2011). Brand personality of tourist destinations: an appli-cation of self-congruity theory. Tourism Management, 32(1), 114e127.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1e17.

Wang, Y. (2008). Collaborative destination marketing: roles and strategies ofconvention and visitors bureaus. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(3), 191e209.

Wang, Y., & Xiang, Z. (2007). Toward a theoretical framework of collaborativedestination marketing. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 75e85.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic ManagementJournal, 5, 171e180.



Nathan Line ([email protected]) is an assistant professor in theDedman School of Hospitality at Florida State University. Hisprimary research interests include collaborative destinationmarketing and stakeholder engagement. These interestshave led him to become increasingly interested in the im-plications of stakeholder marketing for sustainable desti-nation management.

Rodney C. Runyan ([email protected]) is Professor andDirector of the School of Family and Consumer Sciences,Texas State University, and Visiting Professor of Marketingat Lancaster University. His primary research areas arestrategy, research methodology, and entrepreneurship.These interests include investigating how entrepreneurialstrategies impact tourist destinations.


Documents

TM-Line - Runyan