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

com/

U.S. International Pleasure Travelers' Images of Four Mediterranean Destinations: A Comparison of

Visitors and Nonvisitors
Seyhmus Baloglu and Ken W. McCleary
Journal of Travel Research 1999 38: 144
DOI: 10.1177/004728759903800207

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/38/2/144

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

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

Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/38/2/144.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 1, 1999

What is This?

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on December 2, 2013
NOVEMBER
JOURNAL OF1999
TRAVEL RESEARCH

U.S. International Pleasure Travelers’

Images of Four Mediterranean
Destinations: A Comparison
of Visitors and Nonvisitors
SEYHMUS BALOGLU AND KEN W. MCCLEARY

This study compares U.S. international pleasure travel- competition among tourist destinations. Developing a com-
ers’ images of four Mediterranean destinations—Turkey, petitive position among tourism destinations is usually
Egypt, Greece, and Italy—for both visitors and nonvisitors. accomplished by creating and transmitting a favorable image
The image construct was conceptualized as having three com- to potential tourists in target markets (Goodall 1990; Gartner
ponents: cognitive, affective, and overall image. MANOVA 1993). At the local and international levels, tourism destina-
analysis indicated that significant differences exist in all im- tions often compete on nothing more than the images held in
age components between the four destination countries. The the minds of potential travelers. Therefore, marketers of
findings revealed strengths and weaknesses of the four com- tourist destinations spend a great amount of money, time, and
peting destinations and implications for positioning in the effort to create a favorable image to help entice prospective
U.S. international pleasure market as well as product devel- travelers to visit their destinations.
opment and promotion strategy for the destinations. In the presence of a fierce competitive environment, des-
tination marketers should have a sound understanding of
travelers’ images of their own destinations as well as an
U.S. international pleasure travelers constitute a lucrative understanding of the image travelers hold of competing des-
and substantial segment for international tourist destinations. tinations (Calantone et al. 1989; Javalgi, Thomas, and Rao
In 1995, 576 million people visited international tourism des- 1992; Ahmed 1991). To develop a positioning strategy, des-
tinations and generated $373 billion international tourist tination marketers should know the perceived strengths and
receipts. With almost 55 million international visitors, U.S. weaknesses of their own and competing tourist areas. Poten-
travelers constituted almost 10% of the international travel tial travelers’ images of the destination relative to its com-
market (Travel Industry Association of America 1996). petitors provide useful insights into development of a posi-
Travel to Europe from the United States alone rose by 40% tioning strategy. This information also enables the
from 6.2 million to 8.5 million between 1991 and 1996. Like destination to see if perceptions (demand side) are compati-
many other international destinations, Mediterranean desti- ble with the destination’s resources and market offerings
nations are competing to capture a larger market share of (supply side). If any discrepancy exists, destination market-
U.S. international pleasure travelers. For example, in 1997, ers and planners should either alter image perceptions and
Turkey attracted 406,000 U.S. travelers, a 11.5% increase positioning or improve and develop tourism products and
over 1996, while Italy attracted 1.4 million U.S. travelers, a services, or both (Calantone et al. 1989; Ahmed 1991).
1.2% increase over 1996. In 1996, Egypt received 174,000
U.S. travelers, a 13% jump over 1995, and Greece attracted
almost 300,000 in 1997, a 14.1% increase from 1996 (World STUDY PURPOSE
Tourism Organization 1998).
The main purpose of the study reported here was to com-
pare U.S. international pleasure travelers’ current images of
BACKGROUND four Mediterranean destinations: Turkey, Egypt, Greece, and
Italy. This study hypothesizes that destinations will differ on
Research in the past two decades in travel and tourism has
demonstrated that destination image is a valuable concept in Seyhmus Baloglu is an assistant professor in the Department of
investigating the destination selection process and has con- Tourism and Convention Administration, Harrah College of Hotel
Administration, at the University of Nevada Las Vegas in Las Ve-
tributed to our understanding of tourist behavior. The image gas. Ken W. McCleary is a professor in the Department of Hospital-
concept has been of great interest not only to researchers and ity and Tourism Management at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
academicians but also to industry practitioners and destina- and State University in Blacksburg.
tion marketers. This increased interest can be attributed to Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38, November 1999, 144-152
increasing international tourism coupled with intense © 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on December 2, 2013
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 145

perceptual/cognitive, affective, and overall image within perceptions of destinations vary across eight image attrib-
visitors’ and nonvisitors’ segments. A literature review of utes. Goodrich (1978) measured travelers’ perceptions and
destination image and positioning studies revealed two key similarity judgments of nine tourist-attracting regions in and
issues that should be taken into consideration from practical, outside the United States. Two dimensions of similarity
conceptual, and methodological standpoints: familiarity judgments of the regions were found: “entertainment” and
(previous visitation) with destination and conceptualization “culture/life style.”
and measurement of image. First, both visitors (actual) and Crompton, Fakeye, and Lue (1992) applied Woodside’s
nonvisitors (potential) to destinations should be taken into (1982) conceptual approach to positioning, which suggested
consideration or at least previous experience with a destina- that effective positioning can be accomplished by matching
tion should be controlled. Most scholars failed to control or benefits provided by a destination with benefits sought by a
include this variable in destination positioning studies. Sec- target market. The authors compared the Rio Grande Val-
ond, a disaggregated approach focusing on components of ley’s image with Hawaii, Arizona, Florida, and California
image as well as overall image (global impression) should be based on push and pull benefits sought by travelers.
used to better understand relative images and strengths and Although the authors have taken travelers’ level of familiar-
weaknesses of tourist destinations. With these points in ity into consideration and compared first-time and repeat
mind, by disaggregating image into its perceptual/cognitive, visitors on the pull and push benefit groupings, they only
affective, and overall image components, this study (1) analyzed the differences between two subsamples (first-time
investigates U.S. international pleasure travelers’ current and repeat) rather than relative positions of destinations
images of Turkey, Egypt, Greece, and Italy for those who within each subsample.
visited (visitors) and those who did not (nonvisitors); (2) Haahti (1986) proposed a cognitive structure model of
identifies the destinations’ strengths and weaknesses in both positioning and examined the perceptions of 12 European
visitors’ and nonvisitors’ segments of travelers; and (3) pro- summer holiday destinations relative to each other to deter-
vides an example of how other destinations might assess mine the relative position of Finland. The study identified
their own competitive image. two underlying perceptual dimensions: “ease and economy”
and “different experience.” The major finding of the study
was that the perceptions of countries differed along these
RELATED RESEARCH dimensions and 10 destination attributes used to evaluate
them. However, Haahti’s study was limited to the percep-
Destination Image and Positioning tual/cognitive component of image and travelers’ familiarity
with destinations was not controlled. Baloglu and Brinberg
Positioning is the process of establishing a distinctive (1997), on the other hand, focused solely on the affective
place for a destination in the minds of the travelers in the tar- images of 11 Mediterranean destinations by using Russel and
geted markets (Crompton, Fakeye, and Lue 1992; Kotler, his colleagues’ circumplex model of affect (Russel 1980;
Haider, and Rein 1993; Echtner and Ritchie 1993). Relative Russel and Pratt 1980; Russel, Ward, and Pratt 1981; Russel
images of tourist destinations can be determined by compari- and Snodgrass 1987). Results indicated that Russel and his
sons across several competing destinations. This process will colleagues’ proposed affective space can be used by tourist
result in identifying destinations’ strengths and weaknesses, destinations as a positioning tool, as the affective images of
competitive advantages, and distinctive competencies for tourism destination countries varied across both positive
each destination relative to other potential sites. The devel- (arousing, exciting, pleasant, and relaxing) and negative
opment of a positioning strategy includes (1) identifying a dimensions (sleepy, gloomy, unpleasant, and distressing).
target market segment’s images of a destination, (2) compar- However, it should be noted that the study did not take previ-
ing these images with those of competitors, and (3) selecting ous visitations into consideration.
destination attributes that meet the needs and wants of travel- Calantone et al. (1989) examined the images of eight
ers and differentiate a destination from its competitors Pacific Rim countries. Their analysis involved multiple ori-
(Aaker and Shansby 1982; Javalgi, Thomas, and Rao 1992; gins, multiple destinations, and multiple attributes. The
Crompton, Fakeye, and Lue 1992; Ahmed 1991). If a desti- results indicated that tourist perceptions of a destination vary
nation is not differentiated from similar destinations, then the across image attributes as well as with vacationers’ country
likelihood of being considered and chosen in the travel deci- of origin. The study focused on only those who actually vis-
sion process is reduced (Mayo and Jarvis 1981). ited the destinations selected. Gartner (1989) investigated
One particular interest of destination image studies has U.S. residents’ images of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado,
been to identify image strengths and weaknesses of tourism and Utah to determine the underlying attributes of how those
destinations relative to other destinations based on perceived states are differentiated. The results showed that the states
destination attributes and/or the perceived similarities have varying image strengths and weaknesses based on
between destinations with no reference to particular destina- selected destination attributes. The author cautioned that a
tion attributes (Mayo 1973; Anderssen and Colberg 1973; major weakness of the study was its inability to control
Goodrich 1978; Haahti 1986; Fenton and Pearce 1988; Gart- respondents’ familiarity (previous visitation) with the four
ner 1989; Crompton, Fakeye, and Lue 1992; Baloglu and states. Similarly, Javalgi, Thomas, and Rao (1992) studied
Brinberg 1997). U.S. pleasure travelers’ perceptions for Central Europe,
Mayo (1973) demonstrated that the perceptions of eight Southern Europe, Scandinavia, and the British Isles and
regions in the United States varied along three dimensions: found that four regions were differentiated on perceptual
scenery, pleasant climate, and lack of congestion. Similarly, attributes. Perceptual differences were also found to vary
Anderssen and Colberg (1973) explored the perceptions with trip type, namely, touring and outdoor trips. However,
toward nine Mediterranean destinations and found that their study had several weaknesses. First, regions instead of

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on December 2, 2013
146 NOVEMBER 1999

specific European destinations were used. Second, it was not METHOD

clear that the authors controlled travelers’ familiarity (previ-
ous visitation) with the regions included in the study.
Sample
Importance of Previous Visitation The target population for this study consisted of adults
on Destination Image (18 years of age or older) who had expressed an interest in
taking a vacation in a foreign country. The sample population
It should be noted that most image and positioning stud- was chosen from a list of people provided by the Turkish
ies discussed above failed to control travelers’ familiarity National Tourism Office (NTO), who requested information
with the destinations selected. Previous visitation or direct about Turkey. The list consisted of 4,600 adult U.S. citizens
experience with a destination is likely to modify the image of who had not been to Turkey when they requested informa-
the destination. Numerous studies have investigated image tion. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to a ran-
modifications due to actual destination experience (overt- dom sample of 1,530 individuals from that list in the summer
behavior). Some of these studies used a longitudinal of 1996. As an incentive for participating in the study,
approach by which the modifications between travelers’ respondents were informed that they would be eligible to win
pretrip and posttrip destination images were compared several prizes. A few tour operators in the United States
(Pearce 1982; Phelps 1986; Dann 1994). Other studies exam- agreed to provide free package tours to Turkey and an airline
ined the image differences between travelers who visited the company agreed to give a free round-trip ticket to be used for
destination (visitors) and those who did not (nonvisitors) Turkey. A total of 448 questionnaires (a response rate of
(Fridgen 1987; Chon 1990; Ahmed 1991; Fakeye and 29.6%) were coded for data analysis. Data were collected for
Crompton 1991; Hu and Ritchie 1993; Milman and Pizam four Mediterranean tourism destination countries: Turkey,
1995). These studies generally found that travelers’ images Egypt, Greece, and Italy. These destinations were selected
were modified after visiting a particular destination and sub- because all four destinations are recognized as major and
stantial differences existed between visitors and nonvisitors competing tourist destinations and they are of interest to the
with regard to a particular tourist destination. Destination researchers.
marketers should distinguish between visitors and nonvisi- To guard against nonresponse bias, a random sample of
tors when developing image or positioning strategies for 100 individuals who did not respond to the survey was tele-
their destinations in a specific market because the two groups phoned, 39 of which agreed to participate. Data were col-
may require different positioning and communication strate- lected on demographics, previous experience with selected
gies. As Ahmed (1991) pointed out, a destination image as countries, and selected image items. No significant differ-
perceived by its actual and potential visitors plays an impor- ences were found between respondents and nonrespondents.
tant role in determining its competitiveness as a tourist
destination. Measurement
Components of Image Fourteen perceptual/cognitive items were selected on the
basis of a review of previous literature regarding destination
Scholars in several disciplines and fields now agree that image. The contents of the four destinations’ guidebooks and
the image construct has two main components: cognitive and brochures were also examined and selected attributes were
affective evaluations (Dobni and Zinkhan 1990). Perceptual found reflecting the tourism offerings of those destinations.
or cognitive evaluation refers to beliefs and knowledge about Respondents were asked to rate each country as a summer
an object (evaluation of attributes of the object), whereas vacation destination on each of 14 attributes on a 5-point
affective evaluation refers to feelings about the object (Bur- scale ranging from 1 (offers very little) to 5 (offers very
gess 1978; Holbrook 1981; Ward and Russel 1981; Zimmer much). Affective evaluations of destinations were measured
and Golden 1988; Walmsley and Jenkins 1993; Gartner on a 7-point scale using affective image scales developed by
1993; Baloglu and Brinberg 1997). Russel and his colleagues (Russel 1980; Russel and Pratt
Research in environmental psychology has also deter- 1980; Russel, Ward, and Pratt 1981; Russel and Snodgrass
mined that environments and places have perceptual/cogni- 1987). The scale includes four bipolar scales: Arousing-
tive and affective images (Lynch 1960; Burgess 1978; Rus- Sleepy, Pleasant-Unpleasant, Exciting-Gloomy, and Relaxing-
sel and Pratt 1980; Russel, Ward, and Pratt 1981; Hanyu Distressing. An overall image measurement scale was
1993). Knowledge about the place’s objective attributes is adapted from Stern and Krakover (1993). Respondents were
represented by the perceptual/cognitive component, whereas asked to rate their overall image of each country as a summer
the affective component is knowledge about its affective vacation destination on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (very
quality (Genereux, Ward, and Russel 1983). Places also have negative) to 7 (very positive).
an overall (global) image. This global image is usually
formed as a result of both perceptual/cognitive and affective Data Analysis
evaluations of the place (Mazursky and Jacoby 1986; Stern
and Krakover 1993). Gartner (1986) indicated that people’s MANOVA was used to assess image differences between
perceptions of various attributes within a destination will destinations. MANOVA is more appropriate than univariate
interact to form a composite or overall image. Ahmed (1991) ANOVA to assess overall differences between groups (tour-
pointed out that evaluations of overall image and its compo- ist destinations) when there are multiple dependent variables
nents would be different and therefore, both should be mea- (image attributes) and when multicollinearity exists between
sured to develop a more effective positioning strategy. the dependent variables (Hair et al. 1992; Bray and Maxwell

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on December 2, 2013
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 147

TABLE 1 TABLE 2
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS (N = 448) VISITORS AND NONVISITORS OF FOUR
MEDITERRANEAN DESTINATIONS
Number %
Visited
Age
18-34 years 45 10.3 Destination Yes No
35-49 years 89 20.3
50-64 years 152 34.6 Turkey 231 138
65 years or older 153 34.8 (62.6%) (37.4%)
Total 439 100.0 Egypt 86 321
(21.1%) (78.9%)
Gender Greece 183 160
Male 212 47.6 (53.4%) (46.6%)
Female 233 52.4 Italy 120 97
Total 445 100.0 (55.3%) (44.7%)

Marital status Note: Travelers who visited a destination more than once
Single 86 19.4 were excluded from the visitors’ group. So the “Yes” column
Married 265 60.0 represents onetime visitors only.
Divorced/widowed/separated 91 20.6
Total 442 100.0

Education Previous Experience

Grade school 2 0.5
High school 25 5.7 Table 2 shows the breakdown of visitors and nonvisitors
College 196 44.4
Graduate school 218 49.4
to four destinations. Because multiple visits to a destination
Total 441 100.0 may affect the evaluations of it, the respondents who visited a
destination more than once were excluded from the visitors’
Income group.
Less than $25,000 26 8.2
$25,000-$34,999 39 10.4
$35,000-$49,999 43 13.3 Image Differences
$50,000-$74,999 83 24.0
$75,000-$99,999 58 15.4 Since MANOVA is useful when dependent variables are
$100,000 or more 106 28.7 correlated, the appropriateness of the multivariate technique
Total 355 100.0 was tested by Bartlett’s test of sphericity for both visitors and
nonvisitors. Bartlett’s test (3264.37 with 171 df, p < .0001 for
visitors and 4,564.97 with 171 df, p < .0001 for nonvisitors)
1985). Univariate significances were examined to see which revealed that dependent variables were correlated and there-
image items were significantly different across tourist desti- fore, MANOVA was employed to analyze the data. It is often
nations. Finally, post hoc contrasts were examined to deter- suggested that multiple multivariate significance tests used
mine which destinations are differentiated on each image with MANOVA should be examined (Bray and Maxwell
attribute. The Scheffé test is preferred because it is a conser- 1985). The overall MANOVA tests of Pillais, Hotelling’s T2,
vative post hoc procedure (Hair et al. 1992). Before conduct- and Wilks’s lambda (57 df, p < .0001) all were significant for
ing the analysis, the distributions of the dependent variables both visitors’ and nonvisitors’ segments, indicating that the
were analyzed to check the homogeneity of variance and nor- four Mediterranean destinations are differentiated based on
mality assumptions of MANOVA. No significant violation their images.
of assumptions was found. Once an overall significant difference was found between
destinations, one-way ANOVAs (univariate significance)
results were examined to see which image items differenti-
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ated the destinations. Also, a post hoc Scheffé procedure at
an alpha level of .05 was employed to see which destinations
were significantly different on each image item. The same
Demographic Profile procedures were followed for visitors’ and nonvisitors’ seg-
of Respondents ments of respondents. The results of one-way ANOVAs and
post hoc comparisons of the destinations’ average scores on
The demographic profile of the respondents is presented each attribute are summarized in Table 3 for visitors and
in Table 1. The profile is presented in an aggregated nature Table 4 for nonvisitors.
rather than separating visitors’ and nonvisitors’ segments
because no significant differences were found between their
demographic profiles. The majority of the respondents were
within older age brackets, were highly educated, and had IMAGE DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE
relatively high incomes. Gender of the respondents was VISITORS’ SEGMENT
almost evenly distributed with 47.6% male and 52.4%
female. Most of the respondents were married (60.0%). The Perceptual/Cognitive Variables
demographic profile of respondents in this study was found
to be consistent with the profile of U.S. pleasure travelers in Significant differences at the .0001 level were found
Javalgi, Thomas, and Rao’s (1992) study. between the four destinations on 11 of the 14 perceptual/

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on December 2, 2013
148 NOVEMBER 1999

TABLE 3
IMAGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FOUR MEDITERRANEAN DESTINATIONS (VISITORS)

Destinations
Turkey Egypt Greece Italy Univariate
Attribute (n = 231) (n = 86) (n = 183) (n = 120) Significance
Perceptual/cognitive*
a
Good value for money 4.59 3.94b 3.79b 3.34c .00
Beautiful scenery/natural attractions 4.66a 4.10b 4.46c 4.54a,c .00
Good climate 4.06a 3.11b 3.93a 4.11a .00
Interesting cultural attractions 4.73 4.68 4.67 4.77 .26
Suitable accommodations 4.17 3.91 4.08 4.17 .08
Appealing local food (cuisine) 4.09a 3.41b 4.00a 4.45c .00
Great beaches/water sports 3.57a 2.38b 3.87c 3.41d .00
Quality of infrastructure 3.19a 2.67b 3.33a 3.58c .00
Personal safety 3.74a 2.61b 3.87a 3.65a .00
Interesting historical attractions 4.90 4.79 4.78 4.83 .07
Unpolluted/unspoiled environment 3.62a 2.74b 3.36c 3.24c .00
Good nightlife and entertainment 3.31a 2.87b 3.51c 3.73c .00
Standard hygiene and cleanliness 3.26a 2.45b 3.46c 3.61c .00
Interesting and friendly people 4.42a 3.60b 3.99c 4.05c .00

Affective**
Unpleasant-pleasant 5.86a 4.26b 5.46c 5.92a .00
Sleepy-arousing 5.82a 5.15b 5.64a 5.89a .00
Distressing-relaxing 5.28a 4.01b 5.39a 5.40a .00
Gloomy-exciting 6.14a 5.61b 5.87b 6.21a .00

Overall impression***
Overall image 5.85a 4.13b 5.47c 5.88a .00
Note: Means with a different superscripted letter (a, b, c, d) are significantly different at the .0001 level.
* 1 = offers very little, 5 = offers very much. ** 7-point bipolar scale, where positive poles were assigned to the higher values.
*** 1 = very negative, 7 = very positive.

TABLE 4
IMAGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FOUR MEDITERRANEAN DESTINATIONS (NONVISITORS)

Destinations
Turkey Egypt Greece Italy Univariate
Attribute (n = 138) (n = 321) (n = 160) (n = 97) Significance
Perceptual/cognitive*
a
Good value for money 4.42 3.74b 3.76b 3.10c .00
Beautiful scenery/natural attractions 4.64a 4.00b 4.60a 4.44a .00
Good climate 3.95a 3.20b 4.00a 3.94a .00
Interesting cultural attractions 4.74 4.58 4.74 4.63 .07
Suitable accommodations 3.80a 3.39b 3.95a 4.22c .00
Appealing local food (cuisine) 4.09a 3.26b 4.10a 4.55c .00
Great beaches/water sports 3.79a 2.54b 4.06c 3.36d .00
Quality of infrastructure 3.05a 2.57b 3.38c 3.36c .00
Personal safety 3.46a 2.34b 3.70a 3.59a .00
Interesting historical attractions 4.73 4.76 4.83 4.80 .43
Unpolluted/unspoiled environment 3.66a 2.94b 3.44a 3.06b .00
Good nightlife and entertainment 3.32a 2.76b 3.61c 3.77c .00
Standard hygiene and cleanliness 3.06a 2.44b 3.27a,c 3.42c .00
Interesting and friendly people 4.10a 3.40b 3.97a 3.98a .00

Affective**
Unpleasant-pleasant 5.64a 4.43b 5.76a 5.76a .00
Sleepy-arousing 5.70a 5.05b 5.57a 5.91a .00
Distressing-relaxing 5.15a 4.07b 5.52a 5.43a .00
Gloomy-exciting 5.77a 5.16b 5.85a 6.02a .00
Overall impression***
a
Overall image 5.65 4.30b 5.67a 5.50a .00
Note: Means with a different superscripted letter (a, b, c, d) are significantly different at the .0001 level.
* 1 = offers very little, 5 = offers very much. ** 7-point bipolar scale, where positive poles were assigned to the higher values.
*** 1 = very negative, 7 = very positive.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on December 2, 2013
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 149

cognitive items as perceived by the visitors’ segment (Table Affective Variables and Overall
3). Only cultural attractions, suitable accommodations, and Impression of Image
interesting historical attractions were viewed as being the
same. Egypt was rated significantly lower than the other Although affective measures and the overall image
three countries on every item, except value for the money, dimension were statistically significant, comparison of their
where it was rated similar to Greece. This shows that Egypt average scores revealed that there were no significant differ-
was seen as less attractive by visitors than the three compet- ences between Turkey, Italy, and Greece. The significant dif-
ing destinations, which should give the tourist industry in the ference came from the difference between Egypt and the
country a great deal of concern. other countries. Turkey, Italy, and Greece were perceived
The other three countries each had its strengths. For significantly more positively than Egypt on all four affective
example, Turkey was seen as a good value for the money image items as well as overall image.
with interesting and friendly people and an unpol-
luted/unspoiled environment. Greece was rated most highly
on its great beaches/water sports, while Italy was rated sig- DISCUSSION
nificantly higher on its appealing local cuisine and quality of
infrastructure. How these impressions differed from nonvisi-
tors and the implications of this for marketing strategy will Strengths and Weaknesses
be discussed later. of the Destinations
Crompton, Fakeye, and Lue (1992) pointed out that trav-
Affective Variables elers are more likely to select competitive destinations based
Visitors rated Italy, Greece, and Turkey as more positive on their perceived differences, and destination attributes
than Egypt on all of the affective variables. In addition, both receiving the highest perception ratings are not necessarily
Italy and Turkey were seen as more pleasant and exciting those that differentiate competitive destinations from each
than Greece. other. This study seems to support their statement. For exam-
ple, the perceived ability of all four destinations to offer cul-
tural and historical attractions was higher than all other per-
Overall Impression of Image ceptual/cognitive items. However, in the visitors’ and non-
Turkey and Italy were also rated similarly and higher than visitors’ segments of respondents, all four destinations were
Greece and Egypt on overall impression. Again, Egypt was perceived similarly on these two items. In other words, cul-
rated lowest. tural and historical attractions do not serve as differentiating
factors between the destinations. This finding has important
practical implications. In the U.S. market, positioning efforts
IMAGE DIFFERENCES WITHIN of the destinations included in this study usually focus on his-
tory and culture. The findings indicate that attempts to posi-
THE NONVISITORS’ tion and differentiate those destinations in the U.S. market
SEGMENT based on history and culture, attributes which are equally
strong for all four countries, may be difficult unless differ-
Perceptual/Cognitive Variables ences in history and culture are communicated effectively to
potential travelers. It should be noted that the primary attri-
Significant differences were found between the four des- butes that are used by consumers to make travel decisions
tinations on 12 of the 14 perceptual/cognitive items at the still need to be communicated due to their importance. In
.0001 level. It is important to note that perceptions of non- addition, however, positioning efforts should also take
visitors differed from those of visitors on several variables, advantage of secondary images and emphasize a destina-
suggesting that nonvisitors may have inaccurate images of tion’s strengths relative to its competition to set itself apart.
how countries are similar and what they have to offer. In both the visitors’ and nonvisitors’ segments of respon-
Only interesting cultural attractions and interesting his- dents, Egypt was perceived less positively than Turkey, Italy,
torical attractions showed no differences across all four des- and Greece on most of the significant image items. One pos-
tinations (Table 4). Nonvisitors viewed Italy, Turkey, and sible reason for this would be that recent terrorist attacks
Greece similarly on four attributes: beautiful scenery and have tarnished the image of Egypt in the U.S. market. There-
natural attractions, good climate, personal safety, and inter- fore, for practical reasons, Egypt was excluded from the fol-
esting and friendly people, and all three of the destinations lowing discussion, which focuses on the strengths and weak-
were viewed more positively than Egypt on these attributes. nesses of Turkey, Italy, and Greece.
As with the visitors’ segment, each destination except The main distinguishing attributes between all three des-
Egypt received the highest rating on at least one attribute, tinations were found to be mostly perceptual/cognitive
although for the nonvisitors the difference was not always attributes such as value for money, accommodations, local
statistically significant between all of the destinations. For food (cuisine), beaches and water sports, quality of infra-
example, Turkey stood out as being a good value and having structure, environment, nightlife and entertainment, and
an unpolluted and unspoiled environment, while Italy was hygiene and cleanliness. Affective items were found to dis-
rated highest on having suitable accommodations, appealing tinguish destinations in the visitors’ segment. A comparison
cuisine, good nightlife and entertainment, and was seen as of each destination pair is summarized in Table 5. Turkey
having higher standards of hygiene and cleanliness. Greece was perceived superior to Greece and Italy as a good value
stood out as having great beaches/water sports and a high- for the money in both visitors’ and nonvisitors’ segments of
quality infrastructure. respondents and superior to Greece and Italy on unpolluted
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on December 2, 2013
150 NOVEMBER 1999

TABLE 5
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF DESTINATION PAIRS

Turkey versus Italy

Visitors
Turkey’s strengths Italy’s strengths
Good value for money Appealing local food (cuisine)
Great beaches/water sports Quality of infrastructure
Unpolluted/unspoiled environment Good nightlife and entertainment
Interesting historical attractions Standard hygiene and cleanliness
Interesting and friendly people
Nonvisitors
Good value for money Suitable accommodations
Great beaches/water sports Appealing local food (cuisine)
Unpolluted/unspoiled environment Quality of infrastructure
Good nightlife and entertainment
Standard hygiene and cleanliness
Turkey versus Greece
Visitors
Turkey’s strengths Greece’s strengths
Good value for money Great beaches/water sports
Beautiful scenery/natural attractions Good nightlife and entertainment
Unpolluted/unspoiled environment Standard hygiene and cleanliness
Interesting and friendly people
Pleasant
Exciting
Overall image
Nonvisitors
Good value for money Great beaches/water sports
Good nightlife and entertainment
Standard hygiene and cleanliness
Greece versus Italy
Visitors
Greece’s strengths Italy’s strengths
Good value for money Appealing local food (cuisine)
Great beaches/water sports Quality of infrastructure
Pleasant
Overall image
Nonvisitors
Good value for money Suitable accommodations
Great beaches/water sports Appealing local food (cuisine)
Unpolluted/unspoiled environment

and unspoiled environment in the visitors’ segment. Thus, it on suitable accommodations in the visitors’ segment. For
was evident that value and environment could serve as a Italy, comfort of travel experience represents a unique posi-
unique positioning theme for Turkey in the U.S. market. On tioning theme in the U.S. market. On the other hand, Italy
the other hand, Turkey was perceived as inferior to both was perceived as inferior to Turkey and Greece in terms of
Greece and Italy on good nightlife and entertainment in both providing an unpolluted and unspoiled environment.
visitors’ and nonvisitors’ segments and inferior to both Some differences were also detected between Turkey and
Greece and Italy on standard hygiene and cleanliness in the Greece only in the visitors’ segment of respondents. Turkey
visitors’ segment, and on quality of infrastructure in the non- was perceived as superior to Greece in terms of providing beau-
visitors’ segment. tiful scenery and natural attractions as well as overall image.
Greece, in both visitors’ and nonvisitors’ segments of There were also some similarities in perceptions for spe-
respondents, was perceived as superior to Turkey and Italy in cific pairs of countries. For nonvisitors, the perception of
terms of offering great beaches and water sports. This attri- Turkey was similar to Greece in terms of offering suitable
bute could be a unique selling proposition for Greece in the accommodations, appealing local food (cuisine), and unpol-
U.S. market. Greece was perceived inferior to Turkey and luted and unspoiled environment. For visitors, the perception
Italy as a pleasant and exciting destination and had an infe- of Turkey was as good as Greece in terms of offering appeal-
rior overall image in the visitors’ group. Italy, in the visitors’ ing local food and quality of infrastructure. In the visitors’
and nonvisitors’ segments of respondents, was perceived as segment, Greece was perceived as good as Italy on un-
superior to Turkey and Greece in terms of offering appealing polluted and unspoiled environment, good nightlife and
local food (cuisine) and superior to Turkey and Greece in entertainment, and standard hygiene and cleanliness. In the
terms of offering suitable accommodations in the nonvisi- nonvisitors’ segment, Greece and Italy were perceived simi-
tors’ segment and quality of infrastructure in the visitors’ larly on good nightlife and entertainment and quality of
segment. Interestingly, no significant difference was found infrastructure.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on December 2, 2013
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 151

Strategies for Attracting might have created a favorable response bias for Turkey.
Nonvisitors versus Visitors Although the cover letter clearly encouraged respondents to
give their true and honest answers, this limitation should be
It is not surprising that there were differences between kept in mind.
visitors’ and nonvisitors’ perceptions of the countries in the The analysis of the brochures and promotional material
study. Nonvisitors must form their perceptions on the basis of destinations included in this research indicated that the
of secondary information such as brochures, movies, word countries studied position themselves as having rich histori-
of mouth, and other media, while visitors can incorporate cal, cultural, and natural attractions. The findings of the cur-
direct impressions gathered during time spent at the tourist rent study revealed that destinations can focus on and differ-
destination. entiate themselves on attributes other than history and
Destinations willing to expand their market base will culture in the U.S. market.
obviously have to tap into people who have never visited Positioning strategies for Turkey, Italy, Greece, and
before. Therefore, it is important to know the perceptions of Egypt can be suggested as follows: Turkey could effectively
nonvisitors so that misconceptions can be corrected and per- be differentiated from the other three destinations by posi-
ceived unique selling features can be exploited. Although tioning herself as providing a good value and an unpolluted/
most of the perceptual/cognitive variables were similar unspoiled destination along with emphasizing similarities
between visitors and nonvisitors, a couple of items were per- with her competitors. Italy can position as providing great
ceived differently. For example, as noted earlier, there were food and comfortable accommodations, while Greece can
no significant differences between the countries in terms of position as an “active” vacation destination as well as
suitable accommodations as perceived by visitors, but non- emphasize the important similarities with competitors.
visitors found differences between three of the four coun- Egypt, on the other hand, may find it useful to attack her
tries. Italy, which was rated highest for accommodations, competitors by offering price discounts and to try to position
could reinforce this perception in promotion aimed at non- as a “good value” destination.
visitors, while Greece and Turkey need to improve their per- The strengths and weaknesses identified in this study pro-
ception on this item. vide guidelines for marketers of destinations for marketing
On the affective dimensions and on overall image non- and communications strategies. Destinations can examine
visitors perceived Turkey, Italy, and Greece as being the their evaluations in both nonvisitors’ and visitors’ market
same. Visitors, however, saw Greece as being significantly segments to further differentiate their positioning and pro-
different (less pleasant and less exciting) than Turkey and motional strategies for the segments. They can also examine
Italy and had a poorer overall image. Especially considering more “realistic” images of visitors to determine how they can
no perceptual differences between the three countries were improve their destination products and services. The findings
found among nonvisitors, Greece should study why the per- can also help tour operators and travel agents that have busi-
ceptual differences occur in visitors and seek to correct the ness with these destinations in developing communication
impression through communication and product/service strategies for their clients.
development efforts aimed specifically at visitors. From a theoretical standpoint, the study confirms that
visitation may alter image and suggests that actual experi-
ence may alter not only image but also the positioning of des-
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS tinations based on perceptual/cognitive variables, affective
variables, and overall attractiveness. While perceptual/cog-
A major purpose of destination marketers is to build a nitive items were the most differentiating elements in the
positive image of their destinations as well as differentiate visitors’ and nonvisitors’ segments, affective items were dis-
themselves from competitors. This study provides insights tinguishing factors in the visitors’ segment. Also, this study
regarding image strengths and weaknesses of Turkey, Egypt, found that there might be variations between perceptual/
Greece, and Italy in the minds of U.S. international pleasure cognitive, affective, and overall image components. There-
travelers. These insights are illustrated from actual and fore, before tourist destinations decide among alternative
potential travelers’ perspectives. The findings can help the positioning strategies, that is, features, benefits, vis-à-vis
Mediterranean destinations investigated to assess their cur- competitor(s), they should know their relative position in
rent images and positions relative to competitors in the U.S. each image component.
market. This information, in turn, will help them compare
their current position and desired position versus competi-
tors. The destinations can also compare the image and posi- REFERENCES
tion they currently attempt to project (supply side) with
images actually held by U.S. travelers (demand side of
Aaker, D. A., and J. G. Shansby (1982). “Positioning Your Product.” Busi-
image). This comparison should enable destinations to see ness Horizons, May-June: 56-62.
the differences between their projected images and received Ahmed, Z. U. (1991). “The Influence of the Components of a State’s Tourist
images by U.S. pleasure travelers, which would help them Image on Product Positioning Strategy.” Tourism Management, 12
(December): 331-40.
plan their communication strategies. Anderssen, P., and R. T. Colberg (1973). “Multivariate Analysis in Travel
Some limitations of the study are worthwhile mentioning Research: A Tool for Travel Package Design and Market Segmenta-
here. The sample population of this study consisted of poten- tion.” In The Fourth Annual Conference Proceedings of TTRA. Sun
Valley, ID: Travel and Tourism Research Association, pp. 225-38.
tial travelers who have requested information about Turkey. Baloglu, S., and D. Brinberg (1997). “Affective Images of Tourism Destina-
Therefore, the results for the nonvisitors’ segment should be tions.” Journal of Travel Research, 35 (4): 11-15.
interpreted with some caution. Also, the incentives provided Bray, J. H., and S. E. Maxwell (1985). Multivariate Analysis of Variance.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
for sample members were related to Turkey only, which

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on December 2, 2013
152 NOVEMBER 1999

Burgess, J. A. (1978). Image and Identity. Occasional Papers in Geography tive Judgements.” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February):
No. 23, University of Hull Publications: W. S. Maney & Son, Kingston 13-28.
Upon Hull, United Kingdom. Hu, Y., and J. R. Brent Ritchie (1993). “Measuring Destination Attractive-
Calantone, R. J., C. A. di Benedetto, A. Hakam, and D. C. Bojanic (1989). ness: A Contextual Approach.” Journal of Travel Research, 32 (Fall):
“Multiple Multinational Tourism Positioning Using Correspondence 25-34.
Analysis.” Journal of Travel Research, 28 (Fall): 25-32. Javalgi, R. G., E. G. Thomas, and S. R. Rao (1992). “U.S. Pleasure Travel-
Chon, K. (1990). “Traveler Destination Image Modification Process and Its ers’ Perceptions of Selected European Destinations.” European Jour-
Marketing Implications.” Developments in Marketing Science, 13: nal of Marketing, 26 (7): 45-64.
480-82. Kotler, P., D. H. Haider, and I. Rein (1993). Marketing Places: Attracting
Crompton, J. L., P. C. Fakeye, and Chi-Chuan Lue (1992). “Positioning: The Investment, Industry, and Tourism to Cities, States, and Nations. New
Example of the Lower Rio Grande Valley in the Winter Long Stay York: Free Press.
Destination Market.” Journal of Travel Research, 31 (Fall): 20-26. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dann, G. (1994). “A Socio-Linguistic Analysis of the Cognitive, Affective, Mayo, E. J. (1973). “Regional Images and Regional Travel Destination.” In
and Conative Content of Images as an Alternative Means to Gauging Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference of TTRA. Sun Valley,
Tourist Satisfaction, Motivation, and Experience.” In Spoilt for ID: Travel and Tourism Research Association, pp. 211-17.
Choice, edited by R. Gasser and K. Weiermaier. Innsbruck, Austria: Mayo, E. J., and L. P. Jarvis (1981). The Psychology of Leisure Travel. Bos-
Kultur Verlag, pp. 125-39. ton: CBI.
Dobni, D., and G. M. Zinkhan (1990). “In Search of Brand Image: A Foun- Mazursky, D., and J. Jacoby (1986). “Exploring the Development of Store
dation Analysis.” Advances in Consumer Research, 17: 110-19. Images.” Journal of Retailing, 62 (2): 145-65.
Echtner, C. M., and J. R. Brent Ritchie (1993). “The Measurement of Desti- Milman, A., and A. Pizam (1995). “The Role of Awareness and Familiarity
nation Image: An Empirical Assessment.” Journal of Travel Research, with a Destination: The Central Florida Case.” Journal of Travel Re-
31 (Spring): 3-13. search, 33 (Winter): 21-27.
Fakeye, P. C., and J. L. Crompton (1991). “Image Differences between Pro- Pearce, P. L. (1982). “Perceived Changes in Holiday Destinations.” Annals
spective, First-Time, and Repeat Visitors to the Lower Rio Grande of Tourism Research, 9: 145-64.
Valley.” Journal of Travel Research, 30 (Fall): 10-16. Phelps, A. (1986). “Holiday Destination Image: The Problem of Assess-
Fenton, M., and P. Pearce (1988). “Multidimensional Scaling and Tourism ment.” Tourism Management, 7 (September): 168-80.
Research.” Annals of Tourism Research, 15: 236-54. Russel, J. A. (1980). “A Circumplex Model of Affect.” Journal of Personal-
Fridgen, J. D. (1987). “Use of Cognitive Maps to Determine Perceived ity and Social Psychology, 39 (6): 1161-78.
Tourism Regions.” Leisure Sciences, 9: 101-17. Russel, J. A., and G. Pratt (1980). “A Description of Affective Quality At-
Gartner, W. C. (1986). “Temporal Influences on Image Change.” Annals of tributed to Environment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Tourism Research, 13: 635-44. ogy, 38 (2): 311-22.
 (1989). “Tourism Image: Attribute Measurement of State Tourism Russel, J. A., and J. Snodgrass (1987). “Emotion and Environment.” In
Products Using Multidimensional Techniques.” Journal of Travel Re- Handbook of Environmental Psychology, edited by D. Stockols and
search, 28 (Fall): 16-20. I. Altman. New York: John Wiley, pp. 245-80.
 (1993). “Image Formation Process.” In Communication and Chan- Russel, J. A., L. M. Ward, and G. Pratt (1981). “Affective Quality Attributed
nel Systems in Tourism Marketing, edited by Muzaffer Uysal and Dan- to Environments: A Factor Analytic Study.” Environment and Behav-
iel R. Fesenmaier. New York: Haworth, pp. 191-215. ior, 13 (3): 259-88.
Genereux, R. L., L. M. Ward, and J. A. Russel (1983). “The Behavioral Stern, E., and S. Krakover (1993). “The Formation of a Composite Urban
Component in the Meaning of Places.” Environmental Psychology, 3: Image.” Geographical Analysis, 25 (2): 130-46.
43-55. Travel Industry Association of America (1996). 1997 Travel Outlook for
Goodall, B. (1990). “How Tourists Choose Their Holidays: An Analytical Travel and Tourism. Washington, DC: Travel Industry Association of
Framework.” In Marketing in the Tourism Industry: The Promotion of America.
Destination Regions, edited by B. Goodall and G. Ashworth. London: Walmsley, D. J., and J. M. Jenkins (1993). “Appraisive Images of Tourist
Routledge, pp. 1-17. Areas: Application of Personal Construct.” Australian Geographer,
Goodrich, J. N. (1978). “The Relationship between Preferences for and Per- 24 (2): 1-13.
ceptions of Vacation Destinations.” Journal of Travel Research, 16 Ward, L. M., and J. A. Russel (1981). “The Psychological Representation of
(Fall): 8-13. Molar Physical Environments.” Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Haahti, A. J. (1986). “Finland’s Competitive Position as a Destination.” An- General, 110 (2): 121-52.
nals of Tourism Research, 13: 11-35. Woodside, A. G. (1982). “Positioning a Province Using Traveler Research.”
Hair, J. F. Jr., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black (1992). Multi- Journal of Travel Research, 20 (Winter): 2-6.
variate Data Analysis. New York: Macmillan. World Tourism Organization (1998). Europe: Tourism Market Trends. Ma-
Hanyu, K. (1993). “The Affective Meaning of Tokyo: Verbal and Nonverbal drid, Spain: World Tourism Organization.
Approaches.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13: 161-72. Zimmer, M. R., and L. L. Golden (1988). “Impressions of Retail Stores: A
Holbrook, M. B. (1981). “Integrating Compositional and Decompositional Content Analysis of Consumer Images.” Journal of Retailing, 64 (3):
Analyses to Represent the Intervening Role of Perceptions in Evalua- 265-93.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on December 2, 2013