Cruise destination brand awareness as a moderator ...

Tourism Review Cruise destination brand awareness as a moderator in motivation-satisfaction relation Arja Lemmetyinen, Darko Dimitrovski, Lenita Nieminen, Tuomas Pohjola,

Article information: To cite this document: Arja Lemmetyinen, Darko Dimitrovski, Lenita Nieminen, Tuomas Pohjola, (2016) "Cruise destination brand awareness as a moderator in motivation-satisfaction relation", Tourism Review, Vol. 71 Issue: 4,pp. 245-258, doi: 10.1108/TR-07-2016-0027 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TR-07-2016-0027 Downloaded on: 08 April 2017, At: 09:29 (PT) References: this document contains references to 50 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 675 times since 2016* Downloaded by 93.106.106.200 At 09:29 08 April 2017 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2015),"Young consumers’ insights on brand equity: Effects of brand association, brand loyalty, brand awareness, and brand image", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 Iss 3 pp. 276-292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ IJRDM-02-2014-0024 (2017),"Responsible brands vs active brands? An examination of brand personality on brand awareness, brand trust, and brand loyalty", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 35 Iss 2 pp. 166-179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-04-2016-0064 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by All users group

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Cruise destination brand awareness as a moderator in motivation-satisfaction relation

Downloaded by 93.106.106.200 At 09:29 08 April 2017 (PT)

Arja Lemmetyinen, Darko Dimitrovski, Lenita Nieminen and Tuomas Pohjola

Arja Lemmetyinen is University Researcher based at the School of Economics, University of Turku, Pori, Finland. Darko Dimitrovski is Assistant Professor based at the Faculty of Hotel Management and Tourism, University of Kragujevac, Vrnjacka Banja, Serbia. Lenita Nieminen is Researcher and Tuomas Pohjola is Project researcher, both at the School of Economics, University of Turku, Pori, Finland.

Abstract Purpose – The aim of this study is to examine cruise destination branding as a new resource for a region to promote an area as a differentiated cruise destination. The authors specifically study how the perceived brand awareness of a destination moderates the relation between cruisers’ motivation and destination satisfaction and word-of-mouth (WoM). Design/methodology/approach – A statistical model was adapted from relevant literature and applied in the context of cruise destination branding. The model was tested by measuring Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and the fit of the model through confirmative factor analysis. Hierarchical regression analysis and moderated regression analysis were also conducted. The sample consisted of British cruisers (n ⫽ 182) visiting the city of Pori in Finland. Findings – The findings suggest that factors that impel people to take cruises (social recognition, self-esteem, discovery, socialization, convenience and value) have a significant impact on satisfaction with the destination, whereas brand awareness is recognized as a moderator in the relation between social recognition and destination satisfaction and WoM. Research findings provide a framework to discuss and analyze the cruise tourism business in a holistic way. Whereas the earlier studies have focused on onboard experiences, in this study, the focus of attention is on the onshore experiences of the cruisers. Research limitations/implications – The study is focused on one Baltic Sea cruise destination, the British Cruise Company and a limited segment of senior British passengers. Practical implications – By measuring cruisers’ internal travel motives and their perceptions of the brand awareness of the port-of-call during the cruise, or the destination, the results offer destination marketing organizations valuable information to develop their offerings to meet the needs of future travelers and visitors. Originality/value – The study contributes to the cruise destination literature by linking the perceived brand awareness of a destination to motivational factors of the tourist and further to destination satisfaction and WoM behavior specifically in the context of onshore experiences. Keywords Branding, Satisfaction, Brand awareness, Cruise destination, Cruise travel motivations, WoM behavior Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Received 31 July 2016 Revised 17 October 2016 Accepted 17 October 2016

DOI 10.1108/TR-07-2016-0027

The field of academic research on cruise tourism is considered pre-paradigmatic and multidisciplinary, resulting in fragmentation, managerialism and a lack of unifying theoretical perspectives in the empirical research (Papathanassis and Beckmann, 2011). Focusing on brands and branding may, however, influence the academic research on cruise marketing by bringing a more holistic approach (Lemmetyinen, 2017; Lemmetyinen and Go, 2010; Dev, 2006; Kwortnik, 2006; Miller and Grazer, 2002; Ahmed et al., 2002). Brands and branding have been widely studied in the context of cities, destinations, regions, countries and nations (Anholt, 1998; Konecnik and Gartner, 2007; Kim et al., 2008; Boo et al., 2009; Murphy et al., 2009; Ashworth and Kavaratsis, 2010; Hankinson, 2010; Deffner and Metaxas, 2010; Pike et al., 2010; Bianchi et al., 2014; Kladou and Kehagias, 2014; Pike and Bianchi, 2016). Destination branding using the marketing communications

VOL. 71 NO. 4 2016, pp. 245-258, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1660-5373 TOURISM REVIEW

PAGE 245

of a destination marketing organization (DMO) to reinforce brand elements can be an efficient way to differentiate a destination (Pike and Bianchi, 2016). Furthermore, cruise destination branding should be based on a small set of brand attributes that appeal to the needs of the target market (Pike and Bianchi, 2016).


The current study references research on the motivation for cruising (Hung and Petrick, 2011), the role of affective factors on the perceived value of a cruise (Duman and Mattila, 2005) and the influence of the leisure cruise service environment on the cruise experience (Kwortnik, 2008). This study also responds to calls for further research on cruisers’ experiences and post-consumption evaluations (Petrick, 2003; Hosany and Witham, 2009). Like Kim et al. (2008), we search for a link between tourists’ perceptions of a particular destination and its specific, context bounded, brand elements and the cruisers’ behavioral intentions spawned by satisfaction, such as to revisit the destination or recommend it to others. The travel motivation literature incorporates hardly any work on the travel motivations of cruise tourists in general (Teye and Leclerc, 2003), but Hosany and Witham (2009) investigate the relationships between cruisers’ experiences (particularly onboard experiences), satisfaction and intention to recommend. Konecnik and Gartner (2007) found a tourist’s awareness of a destination and positive perceptions of it are prerequisites of an intention to revisit or to recommend it to others. Boo et al. (2009) and Kim and Kim (2005) consider brand awareness an important component of a brand’s effect in hospitality and tourism, representing the strength of awareness of the destination in a given travel situation (Pike et al., 2010). The current study examines cruise destination branding as a new resource enabling destinations to promote cruise destinations jointly. The study shows the significance of coordinating cruise destination management with the emphasis on brand awareness, tourists’ reasons for taking a cruise and their satisfaction, which can lead to favorable word-of-mouth (WoM) behavior. Focusing on cruise destination, branding is justified by the concepts of destination branding and brand awareness rarely being connected to cruise business research. We specifically study how the perceived brand awareness of a destination moderates the relation between cruisers’ motivation and destination satisfaction and WoM. More precisely, our focus is on older or senior cruise passengers, who are a major target market of cruise operators (Teye and Leclerc, 2003), specifically those visiting Pori, an emerging Finnish cruise destination. It is worth noting that for the cruisers onboard, Pori and the other stops on the itinerary represent a port-of-call or a destination during this specific cruise. However, the cruisers’ experience of Pori might lead them revisit the destination at a later date. In this article, we have chosen to use the term destination when referring to a port-of-call during a cruise, so the two terms are used synonymously in the context of the study.

2. Theoretical framework A cruise destination consisting of a bundle of tangible and intangible components can be perceived as a brand (Ekinci and Hosany, 2006, p. 130). Consequently, the relevant brand theoretical framework in this study comprises earlier research on destination branding and brand awareness in particular. This theoretical viewpoint has rarely been applied in the context of cruise destinations, meaning it is relevant to draw parallels with earlier research on branding in the context of tourism destinations (Konecnik and Gartner, 2007; Boo et al., 2009). Duman and Mattila (2005) describe cruise vacations as high-involvement, affectively laden experiences, “a context where an overall value – overall satisfaction fit is important”. The DMO managing an emerging cruise destination must be able to adapt supply to the changing demand as dictated by a travel agency coordinating the whole route. Duman and Mattila (2005) state that cruisers’ satisfaction plays a role in determining their post-experience value perceptions, and this study investigates their satisfaction with a specific destination’s offering.

PAGE 246 TOURISM REVIEW

VOL. 71 NO. 4 2016

2.1 Cruisers’ travel motivations


There are two motivational factors that have an effect on tourists: the desire to leave the everyday environment behind and the desire to obtain psychological rewards through a journey to a different milieu (Iso-Ahola, 1982). Teye and Leclerc (2003) studied psychological needs (Pearce, 1993) and socio-psychological and cultural motivations (Crompton, 1979) and established the importance of investigating what motivates the consumption of travel. That same research focuses on cruises and how the specific qualities of destinations suit these needs. The same study poses three interesting questions:

What is the motivation for taking a cruise?

What motivates the choice of cruise line, cruise ship and itinerary?

What motivates cruisers to participate in onboard or onshore activities?

In this study, we investigate whether the travel motivations of cruisers influence their perceptions of and satisfaction with the brand of a destination they visit during the cruise. We suggest that five motivational factors – social recognition, self-esteem, discovery, socialization and convenience and value (Iso-Ahola, 1982; Pearce, 1993; Teye and Leclerc, 2003) – might offer psychological rewards for cruisers and increase their satisfaction with the chosen cruise itinerary. Linking the perceived brand awareness of a destination to motivational factors of the tourist and further to destination satisfaction and WoM behavior contributes to the cruise destination literature. 2.1.1 Social recognition. Murphy et al. (2009) link destination brands to motives and the self-image of the tourist. The study applies the definition of a successful brand of De Chernatony and McDonald (2003): “an identifiable product, service, person or place, augmented in such a way that the user perceives relevant, unique added values which match their needs most closely”. Social recognition and prestige are relevant decision-making push factors (Crompton, 1979; Iso-Ahola, 1982; Pearce, 2005) in the cruise passenger’s decision whether to take a cruise, which cruise line to use, and which onboard or onshore activities to choose: H1. Social recognition has a significant influence on satisfaction with a cruise destination. 2.1.2 Self-esteem. The work of Murphy et al. (2009) indicates that perceived self-congruity with a destination might be linked to motivation. The study refers to the finding of Sirgy and Su (2000) that tourists’ motivation to travel to a destination and attitude to it is influenced by the congruence between the visitor image of the place and their own self-esteem. The closer the match between a cruise destination’s visitor image and the cruiser’s self-image, the more likely the cruiser is to have a positive attitude toward the destination and to visit it. Murphy et al. (2009) call for further research on the relationship between tourists’ perceptions of destinations and self-esteem and the intention to revisit and satisfaction: H2. Self-esteem has a significant influence on satisfaction with a cruise destination. 2.1.3 Discovery. Duman and Mattila (2005) discuss novelty and hypothesize on its relationship with hedonics, satisfaction, and value. The study asserts that tourism literature has failed to investigate the relationship between novelty and overall satisfaction (and value). They also refer to control and its relationship to novelty and satisfaction. For package tour vacations (like a cruise), perceptions of greater control produce higher levels of traveler satisfaction. Cruises provide the opportunity for an initial discovery of a destination that might encourage passengers to return later for a longer visit and expanded cultural discovery (Teye and Leclerc, 2003, p. 240). Duman and Mattila (2005) note the impact of novelty on overall satisfaction and value seems to vary based on respondent characteristics:

VOL. 71 NO. 4 2016

TOURISM REVIEW

PAGE 247

H3. Discovery has a significant influence on satisfaction with a cruise destination. 2.1.4 Socialization. Teye and Leclerc (2003, p. 235) find that most cruisers are motivated by a social dimension stemming from the social aspects of the cruise experience. Cruises offer an extensive selection of both onboard and onshore activities and an opportunity to socialize. Kwortnik (2008) notes that a cruise, being a longer-duration service encounter, enables ongoing social interaction with fellow passengers and crew members, and such interactions strongly influence cruisers’ emotional and behavioral responses. Certain characteristics (e.g. the age, actions and appearance) of fellow passengers affect the perceptions of a cruise: H4. Socialization has a significant influence on satisfaction with a cruise destination. 2.1.5 Convenience and value. Previous studies link overall satisfaction to tourists’ value perceptions (Duman and Mattila, 2005; Petrick et al., 2001). A rare exception is Petrick’s (2003) study reporting that service quality, emotional responses and price are specifically connected to perceived value. Pleasurable aspects of the consumption experience are strongly linked to perceived value and that to meet the demands of increasingly value-conscious customers, managers should understand how customers define value. In addition, the context of experiential services, such as cruises, convenience-related motivation factors are important determinants of passengers’ value perceptions (Duman and Mattila, 2005): Downloaded by 93.106.106.200 At 09:29 08 April 2017 (PT)

H5. Convenience and value significantly influence satisfaction with a cruise destination. 2.2 Perceived brand awareness Some studies have tested the customer-based brand equity model utilizing the dimensions of awareness, associations, quality and loyalty proposed by Aaker (1991) (Konecnik and Gartner, 2007; Boo et al., 2009; Kladou and Kehagias, 2014; Bianchi et al., 2014; Pike and Bianchi, 2016). Kim et al. (2008) analyze how destination brand dimensions, such as brand awareness, relate to satisfaction and to the intention to (re)visit a destination. There is a positive relationship between the perceived value of a product’s brand and future behavioral intentions characterized as repurchase intention (Boo et al., 2009). The current research concentrates on the dimension of brand awareness in the context of an emerging cruise destination, presuming that this is the starting point to managing a cruise brand destination (Konecnik and Gartner, 2007). The approach aligns with that of Boo et al. (2009), who emphasize that destination-specific items should be considered when developing a destination brand model. We are not aware of previous research examining brand awareness in the context of cruise destinations. Accordingly, we propose the following hypotheses: H6. Brand awareness of a cruise destination significantly influences satisfaction with that cruise destination. H7. Brand awareness of a cruise destination significantly influences word-of-mouth behavior related to that cruise destination. If brand awareness significantly influences destination satisfaction, it follows that brand awareness will have a significant role as a moderator of the relationship between motivation and destination satisfaction. Therefore, we propose brand awareness is the moderating factor in our model with the following hypotheses: H1a. Brand awareness of a cruise destination has a significant moderating role in the relationship between social recognition and satisfaction with that cruise destination. H2a. Brand awareness of a cruise destination has a significant moderating role in the relationship between self-esteem and satisfaction with that cruise destination. H3a. Brand awareness of a cruise destination has a significant moderating role in the relationship between discovery and satisfaction with that cruise destination.


VOL. 71 NO. 4 2016

H4a. Brand awareness of a cruise destination has a significant moderating role in the relationship between socialization and satisfaction with that cruise destination. H5a. Brand awareness of a cruise destination has a significant moderating role in the relationship between convenience and value and satisfaction with that cruise destination. H6a. Brand awareness of a cruise destination has a significant moderating role in the relationship between satisfaction with that cruise destination and word-of-mouth behavior related to the cruise destination. 2.3 Satisfaction and word-of-mouth behavior


Murphy et al. (2009) connect destination image and attitude to the behavioral intention to visit or revisit a destination and satisfaction with the destination. According to Duman and Mattila (2005), the main consequences of satisfaction and value perception include an intention to repurchase and recommendation behavior. Service customers, such as cruise passengers, rely more heavily on WoM than goods customers do and base future purchase decisions mainly on strong experience qualities. This indicates that satisfaction could mediate the relationship between affect and value (Duman and Mattila, 2005). Hosany and Witham (2009) focus on onboard experiences studying the relationship between cruisers’ experiences, satisfaction and intention to recommend, thus offering cruise marketers a measurement tool to understand their customers. The study illustrates that tourists rely heavily on recommendations from friends and family when choosing a holiday and describes tourists’ satisfaction levels as closely associated with behavioral intention and likelihood to recommend. It also calls for literature modeling intention. In our study, the focus is on the onshore experiences exploring how the cruise passengers perceive an emergent cruise destination and its offerings and services. Moreover, we are able to model how the cruisers’ perceptions are linked to their motivations for cruising. The literature reviewed above prompts the following hypothesis: H8. Satisfaction with a cruise destination will positively influence word-of-mouth behavior related to that cruise destination. The proposed research model for this study consists of five independent variables (social recognition, self-esteem, discovery, socialization, convenience and value), brand awareness as a moderator variable and destination satisfaction and WoM as the dependent variables (Figure 1). The model was designed not only to determine the statistically significant motivators of cruise tourist satisfaction with destination but also to test the moderator role of brand awareness between the independent variables and satisfaction and satisfaction and WoM.

Figure 1 Proposed research model

Social recognition

M

Brand awareness of cruise destination

O Self-esteem

T I

Discovery

V A

Socialization

Convenience

WoM behaviour related to cruise destination

Satisfaction with cruise destination

T I O N

VOL. 71 NO. 4 2016

TOURISM REVIEW

PAGE 249

3. Methodology 3.1 The instrument The research instrument consists of several rating scales to capture the study’s main variables, cruisers’ motivation to cruise, their perception of destination brand awareness, intention to recommend a cruise destination and satisfaction with a cruise destination. The initial draft of the items used was derived from the literature. Motivation variables were selected on the basis of a literature review related to cruise motivations. Social recognition was measured with four statements and self-esteem by three items based on those of Hung and Petrick (2011). Discovery was measured with four items inspired by several research studies (Hung and Petrick, 2011; Teye and Leclerc, 2003; Duman and Mattila, 2005). Socialization consists of two items and the convenience and value variable of three items based on the study by Hung and Petrick (2011).


Brand awareness as a moderation variable describes the perception of cruise tourists regarding Pori as an emerging cruise destination and consists of three items adapted from those in the work of Boo et al. (2009), Konecnik (2006) and Konecnik and Gartner (2007). Satisfaction as a dependent variable describes cruise tourists’ level of satisfaction with Pori as a cruise destination and was measured using five items extracted from the literature on cruise tourism (Hosany and Witham, 2009; Duman and Mattila, 2005), whereas WoM is measured by three items inspired by several studies (Hosany and Witham, 2009; Duman and Mattila, 2005; Hung and Petrick, 2011). The WoM variable is used to determine the level of positive WoM behavior related to Pori as a cruise destination. All the statements were adapted for the purposes of this study. 3.2 Data collection The data were collected from cruisers visiting Pori in 2016. Pori is a port in western Finland and was a new destination for the British Cruise Company. The cruise ship left Britain and traveled to the Baltic Sea, with scheduled stops that included Luleå (Sweden) and Pori and Mariehamn (Finland) with 450 almost exclusively British passengers. Researchers distributed a questionnaire to the passengers after their sightseeing activity in Pori, so immediately after the consumption took place (Hosany and Witham, 2009). A total of 182 questionnaires were collected and the demographic profile of respondents is summarized in Table I. Table I pictures a typical respondent as a senior, British cruiser who travels with his/her spouse and who has an individual pension or shares income level that makes the respondents rather wealthy in British terms. 3.3 Analytical method The data analysis was completed in the statistical package for social sciences (version 20.0) and AMOS (version 18.0). First, we gathered descriptive statistics by calculating mean values and standard deviations relating to cruise tourists’ onshore experience through their evaluation of the guided tours in Pori. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values were calculated to address the issues of the reliability and internal consistency of statements used to measure latent variables. Then an inter-correlation matrix presents inter-correlation between all variables used in the study. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tested the fit of the research model, and a hierarchical-moderated regression analysis used in two steps measured the main and interaction effects. In the first step, brand awareness was used as a moderator between the motivation variables and satisfaction, whereas in the second step, brand awareness was a moderator between satisfaction and WoM.

4. Results The first stage of the evaluation involved gathering the descriptive statistics of the cruise tourists’ onshore experiences in Pori, Finland, through their feedback on each guided tour that


VOL. 71 NO. 4 2016

Table I Descriptive statistics of respondents’ characteristics (n ⫽ 182) Frequency

(%)

55 110 17

30.2 60.4 9.3

47 51 40 27 17

25.8 28 22 14.8 9.3

118 45 15 4

64.8 24.7 8.2 2.2

3 94 63 16 6

1.6 51.6 34.6 8.8 3.3

Employment Employed Non-employed Retired Missing

2 1 176 3

1.1 0.5 96.7 1.6

Income £29000 or less £30-59k £60-89k £90k or more Missing

56 58 20 7 41

30.8 31.9 11 3.8 22.5

Accompanied person Travel alone Spouse Spouse and children Friends and relatives Missing

39 106 2 21 14

21.4 58.2 1.1 11.5 7.7

Country UK

182

100

Age ⬎60

182

100

Gender Male Female Missing Education High school College Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree Missing


Marital status Married Separated/widowed/divorced Single Missing Travel frequency Less than once a year 1-2 trips per year 3-4 trips per year 5 or more trips per year Missing

the cruise tourists participated in. We then calculated mean values and standard deviations for satisfaction and WoM for (Table II). The results above suggest that the cruise tourists generally had positive perceptions of the guided tours offered to them, with a higher level of satisfaction recorded for the trip to the industrial heritage site (5.72), whereas the satisfaction with the visit to a recreational park was rather low (4.57). In general, the level of satisfaction with the onshore experience is reasonably high. In comparison to the satisfaction results, the WoM behavior related to the guided tours of the city of Pori is generally at a lower level. The guided tour of the industrial heritage site attracted a higher probability of positive WoM behavior (5.47), whereas the lowest probability of positive WoM behavior related to the recreational park visit (3.82).

VOL. 71 NO. 4 2016

TOURISM REVIEW

PAGE 251

Table II Satisfaction and word-of-mouth behavior relating to the pori tours as onshore cruise tourists’ experiences Name of the guided tour

N

Mean

SD

Satisfaction An industrial heritage site The City of Pori and Yyteri beach A recreational park A boat trip to Reposaari on the Charlotta Shuttle bus trip to the City of Pori Total

10 54 53 35 31 182

5.72 5.20 4.57 5.37 4.48 4.94

1.02502 1.73705 2.06958 1.72584 1.93691 1.89715

Word-of-mouth An industrial heritage site The City of Pori and Yyteri beach A recreational park A boat trip to Reposaari on the Charlotta Shuttle bus trip to the city of Pori Total

10 54 53 35 31 182

5.47 4.81 3.82 5.17 4.39 4.52

0.99629 1.95621 2.52691 1.66686 2.19274 2.18592


The values of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients used to assess the reliability and internal consistency of the latent variables exceeded the necessary 0.6 threshold (Loewenthal, 2004) (Table III). The WoM variable has the greatest degree of reliability (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ 0.961), whereas the brand awareness variable has the lowest (Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ 0.634). The inter-correlation between all the variables used in the study is presented in Table IV. The results of the CFA show the proposed research model fits the data reasonably well. The values of ␹2 ⫽ 489.229 and df ⫽ 271 give a ratio of ␹2/df of 1.80 which is below the recommended threshold of 3.0 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Other fit indices, CFI (0.946); TLI (0.930); IFI (0.947) have values greater than 0.9 (Byrne, 1998). In addition, the RMSEA coefficient value (0.067) is lower than the required threshold of 0.1 (Steiger, 1990). A hierarchical moderating regression analysis over two steps tested the main and then the interaction effects. The results suggest the independent variables have a significant impact Table III Reliability of variables (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values) Cronbach’s ␣

Variable Social recognition Self-esteem Discovery Socialization Convenience and value Brand awareness Satisfaction WoM

0.896 0.853 0.917 0.853 0.857 0.634 0.957 0.961

Table IV Construct inter-correlation matrix

SR SE DI SO CO BA SA WoM

SR

SE

DI

SO

CO

BA

SA

WM

1.00 0.60 ⫺0.04 0.14 0.07 0.24 0.13 0.19

1.00 0.08 0.28 0.20 0.42 0.13 0.20

1.00 0.53 0.62 0.29 0.46 0.31

1.00 0.47 0.38 0.49 0.35

1.00 0.25 0.40 0.35

1.00 0.47 0.52

1.00 0.70

1.00

Notes: SR – social recognition; SE – self-esteem; DI – discovery; SO – socialization; CO – convenience and value; BA – brand awareness; Sa – satisfaction; WoM – word-of-mouth


VOL. 71 NO. 4 2016

on satisfaction and highlight the moderating role of brand awareness in the relationship between independent variables and satisfaction. Prior to the analysis, the issue of multicollinearity was addressed, and, because all VIF values were below five, we are confident multicollinearity is not an issue in the study. The analysis of the main effects in the first step shows all independent variables have a statistically significant impact on satisfaction with the differences regarding the level of statistical significance: brand awareness (0.326) on the level 0.01; self-esteem (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.199), discovery (␤ ⫽ 0.573) and socialization (␤ ⫽ 0.433) on the level p ⬍ 0.05; and social recognition (␤ ⫽ 0.134) and convenience (␤ ⫽ 0.145) on the level 0.1 (Table V). Therefore, hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4, H5 and H6 are supported.


Brand awareness was set as a moderator to calculate the interaction effects. The interaction effects show that the intensity of the impact of independent variables on satisfaction varies only for social recognition. Brand awareness changes the relationship between social recognition and satisfaction in a negative way; thus, tourists’ brand awareness reduces the satisfaction of those tourists for whom a higher level of social recognition is an important motivation for taking a cruise (Table V). Thus, H1a is supported, whereas H2a, H3a, H4a and H5a are not confirmed. The second step was to calculate the results of the hierarchical moderation analysis focusing on the relationship between satisfaction and brand awareness as independent variables, WoM as a dependent variable and the role of brand awareness as a moderation variable in the relationship between satisfaction and WoM. In this case, the main effects show that the independent variables – satisfaction (0.585) and brand awareness (0.245) – have a statistically significant impact on WoM at the p ⬍ 0.01 level (Table VI). Therefore, H7 and H8 are confirmed. The second phase of the second step set brand awareness as a moderator between satisfaction and WoM. The interaction effects suggest the role of brand awareness is significant at the p ⬍ 0.1 level. Therefore, when brand awareness is introduced into the relationship between satisfaction and WoM, greater satisfaction generates more WoM behavior (Table VI), indicating H6a is confirmed.

Table V Results of hierarchical moderated regression analysis (dependent variable: satisfaction)

Independent variables H1. Social recognition H2. Self-esteem H3. Discovery H4. Socialization H5. Convenience and value H6. Brand awareness Interaction effects H1a. Social recognition* brand awareness H2a. Self-esteem* brand awareness H3a. Discovery* brand awareness H4a. Socialization* brand awareness H5a. Convenience and value* brand awareness R2 Adjusted R2

Model 1

Model 2

Hypothesis supported

0.134* ⫺0.199** 0.195** 0.191** 0.145* 0.326***

0.188** ⫺0.234** 0.218** 0.120ns 0.162** 0.338***

Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported

0.366 0.387

⫺0.160* 0.105ns ⫺0.005ns ⫺0.118ns 0.024ns 0.343 0.347

Notes: ***p ⬍ 0.01; **p ⬍ 0.05; *p ⬍ 0.1; ns – non-significant

VOL. 71 NO. 4 2016

TOURISM REVIEW

PAGE 253

Table VI Results of hierarchical moderated regression analysis (dependent variable: WoM) Model 1

Model 2

Hypothesis supported

Independent variables H7. Satisfaction H8. Brand awareness

0.585*** 0.245***

0.653*** 0.221***

Supported Supported

Interaction effects H6a. Satisfaction* brand awareness R2 Adjusted R2

0.105* 0.532 0.536

Supported

0.537 0.544

Notes: ***p ⬍ 0.01; *p ⬍ 0.1

5. Discussion and conclusions 5.1 Implications for theory


The current study examines the importance of brand awareness in the minds of cruise tourists and its role in promoting an area as a competitive cruise destination. The study contributes to the scarce cruise tourism research by offering an expanded view of brands and branding. Specifically, the current study combines cruise motivation factors and brand awareness to capture the complexity of conceptualizing how tourists evaluate a cruise destination brand. The study builds on previous research on destination branding, brand awareness and cruise travel motivation and tests a model that is unique in the context of cruise destination branding that integrates the concepts of brand awareness, travel motivations, satisfaction and WoM intentions. The model narrows the research gap regarding destination brand measurement (Boo et al., 2009) and contributes to the research on destination marketing that has largely been exploratory without testing a comprehensive model. Our model recognizes the link between cruisers’ motivation and their satisfaction and intent to spread positive WoM views on the destination visited. Furthermore, we explore the role of brand awareness in the relationship between motivations and destination satisfaction and destination satisfaction and WoM. Recognizing the shortage of research on the motivation for taking cruise vacations (Hung and Petrick, 2011), our research offers valuable insights into how brand awareness changes the relationship between cruise motivation and destination satisfaction and destination satisfaction and WoM. The onshore experiences of cruise tourists were assessed. The results indicate that cruise motivation has a significant impact on destination satisfaction, as all relationships are positive except that with self-esteem. The importance of social recognition and self-esteem as a cruise motivation has been already established (Hung and Petrick, 2011), but this study reveals that self-esteem is significant but negative in relation to destination satisfaction, which indicates that a cruise to Pori is not considered an accomplishment increasing self-worth. The result is expected because our sample consists of mature tourists as fully developed personalities, so a one-day visit to Pori as a cruise destination is most unlikely to change their sense of accomplishment and self-worth. The connection between discovery (or novelty) and satisfaction with a destination is significant (Duman and Mattila, 2005). Discovery is a driving force in tourism, especially for the type of traveler attracted to the allocentric (Plog, 2001), which would be an appropriate destination typology for an emerging destination like Pori. We used an emerging market as the context of our research to explore trends in destination marketing (Konecnik and Gartner, 2007; Pike, 2007; Pike et al., 2010). Socialization is also recognized as an important antecedent of satisfaction, supporting earlier studies which emphasize the importance of social aspects of cruise tourism (social interaction) (Yarnal and Kerstetter, 2005; Petrick et al., 2007; Hung and Petrick, 2011). Socialization is especially important for older people, and


VOL. 71 NO. 4 2016


cruising is a convenient way to interact socially especially for mature cruise tourists, who appreciate convenience and value. The importance of price sensitivity relating to behavioral intentions has already been confirmed (Petrick, 2005). Integrating motivation with destination satisfaction and WoM responds to calls for future research to advance understanding of the cruise motivation construct (Hosany and Witham, 2009; Hung and Petrick, 2011). Brand awareness has the greatest impact on satisfaction and WoM, suggesting that brand awareness of a cruise destination is an important antecedent of destination satisfaction and WoM. Brand awareness (salience) is commonly used as a variable in the destination brand equity model (Boo et al., 2009; Konecnik, 2006; Konecnik and Gartner, 2007), with a proven significant impact on destination brand loyalty. Nevertheless, the cruise destination brand of Pori is not yet established in the minds of cruise tourists, and the senior cruise tourists in our sample underline the importance of brand awareness to their satisfaction and WoM. Brand awareness also has an important role as a moderator, especially in the relationship between destination satisfaction and WoM, which suggests that a positive perception of a brand influences the intention to spread positive WoM information, which is especially important to destination marketers. Brand awareness has a significant moderator role only for the relationship between social recognition and satisfaction but in a negative way. So, senior cruisers sampled after their visit to Pori were not strongly motivated by social recognition and are unlikely to believe having visited Pori is an accomplishment that will be valued by others, which is to be expected given Pori’s status as a new cruise destination, and it is clear it has not yet become an attractive one. The current study also considered the relationship between destination satisfaction and WoM. Satisfaction is a highly significant predictor of WoM (Duman and Mattila, 2005; Petrick, 2004a, 2004b). Petrick and Sirakaya (2004) found that cruise tourist repeaters and satisfied first-timers are more likely to spread positive WoM than unsatisfied cruisers. The results are also consistent with Petrick’s (2004b) findings that satisfaction is important in predicting cruise passengers’ behavioral intentions. Previously, the motivation–satisfaction relationship has been studied in the context of onboard experiences on a cruise. In contrast, the focus of the current research was on onshore experiences as part of a cruise, and, therefore, the results have the potential to support the development of a port-of-call into an attractive and emergent cruise destination. Exploring the moderating role of brand awareness in the motivation–satisfaction relationship strengthens the uniqueness of our study; its clear focal point being improving the understanding of what motivates cruise passengers to spread positive (or negative) information on the destinations on a cruise itinerary and also how their awareness of those places can impact their behavioral intentions. 5.2 Implications for marketers Our study has a clear focus on the onshore experiences of cruisers. Consequently, its findings could assist both DMO marketers and other stakeholders involved in servicing cruise visitors to evaluate how their destination will be perceived by potential visitors and to develop their offerings to meet the needs of visitors and stimulate positive WoM behavior and revisit intentions. Our study investigated cruise passengers’ internal travel motivation and their perceptions of the brand of the destination to determine if brand awareness changes the relationship between cruise motivation and satisfaction and WoM intention. Studying the motivations of the cruisers offers quality information not only for cruising companies but also for destination management about the relationship between satisfaction and WoM behavior, combined with how the destination is perceived by cruise passengers. This study assessed the onshore experience of cruise tourists in Pori. It did so through the use of descriptive statistics, which emphasize the importance of the guided tours to the City of Pori, Yyteri beach, and the industrial heritage site, which attracted the higher levels of

VOL. 71 NO. 4 2016

TOURISM REVIEW

PAGE 255

satisfaction and the probability of WoM behavior among the cruise tourists. Equally, the results illustrate that there are issues with the attractiveness of the recreational park tour. Such detailed information offers local service providers and destination marketers alike key data to help improve service quality. 5.3 Limitations and avenues for future research


The limitations of the current study arise from the fact that the research is focused on one cruise destination, the Baltic Sea, the British Cruise Company and a limited segment of mature British passengers. Because this was the first cruise to Pori, and the cruise tourists’ response rate was satisfactory under such circumstances (compare Baruch, 1999), the study results can be interpreted as representative. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized, and additional research on different geographic regions would be required to propose a generic model. Future research might conduct a cluster analysis focusing on the demographic data on cruise tourists as an example of an emerging cruise destination to establish their main characteristics, which would allow the DMO to formulate a targeted marketing strategy. This study concerned the destination brand awareness relating to an emerging cruise destination. In future research, we aim to concentrate on studying better-known destinations and, thus, investigate the associations the cruisers have with them, how loyal the cruisers are to those destinations and how they perceive the quality of the services in those destinations.

References Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand, The Free Press, New York, NY. Ahmed, Z., Johnson, J., Chew, P.L., Tan Wai, F. and Ang Kah, H. (2002), “Country-of-origin and brand effects on consumers’ evaluations of cruise lines”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 19 Nos 2/3, pp. 279-302. Anholt, S. (1998), “Nation brands of the 21st century”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 395-406. Ashworth, G. and Kavaratsis, M. (2010), Towards Effective Place Brand Management, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94. Baruch, Y. (1999), “Response rates in academic studies”, Human Relations, Vol. 52, pp. 421-438. Bianchi, C., Pike, S. and Lings, I. (2014), “Investigating attitudes towards three South American destinations in en emerging long haul market using a model of consumer-based-brand-equity (CBBE)”, Tourism Management, Vol. 42, pp. 215-223. Boo, S., Busser, J. and Baloglu, S. (2009), “A model of customer-based brand equity and its application to multiple destinations”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 219-231. Byrne, B.M. (1998), Structural Equation Modeling With LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Crompton, J.L. (1979), “Motivations for pleasure vacation”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 408-424. De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (2003), Creating Powerful Brand: In Consumer, Service and Industrial Markets, Butterworth-Heinemann Elsevier Ltd Linacre House Jordan Hill, Oxford. Deffner, A. and Metaxas, T. (2010), “Place marketing, local identity and branding cultural images in Southern Europe: New Ionia, Creece and Pafos, Cyprus”, in Ashworth, G. and Kavaratzis, M. (Eds), Towards Effective Place Brand Management, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 49-59. Dev, C.S. (2006), “Carnival cruise lines: creating a new brand course”, Corner Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 301-308. Dimitrovski, D. and Crespi-Vallbona, M. (2016), “Role of food neophilia in food market tourists’ motivational construct: the case of La Boqueria in Barcelona, Spain”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, doi: 10.1080/10548408., 2016.1193100.


VOL. 71 NO. 4 2016

Duman, T. and Mattila, A.S. (2005), “The role of affective factors on perceived cruise vacation value”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 311-323. Ekinci, Y. and Hosany, S. (2006), “Destination personality: an application of brand personality to tourism destinations”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 127-139. Hankinson, G. (2010), “Place branding theory: a cross-domain literature review from a marketing perspective”, in Ashworth, G. and Kavaratzis, M. (Eds), Towards Effective Place Brand Management, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 15-35. Hosany, S. and Witham, M. (2009), “Dimensions of cruisers’ experiences, satisfaction, and intention to recommend”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 351-364. Hung, K. and Petrick, J.F. (2011), “Why do you cruise? Exploring the motivations for taking cruise holidays, and the construction of a cruising motivation scale”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 386-393. Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1982), “Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: a rejoinder”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 256-262. Kim, H.B. and Kim, W.G. (2005), “The relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 549-560.


Kim, SH., Han, HS., Holland, S. and Byon, K.K. (2008), “Structural relationships among involvement, destination brand equity, satisfaction and destination visit intentions: the case of Japanese outbound travellers”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 349-365. Kladou, S. and Kehagias, J. (2014), “Assessing destination brand equity: an integrated approach”, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 2-10. Konecnik, M. (2006), “Croatian-based brand equity for Slovenia as a tourism destination”, Economic and Business Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 83-108. Konecnik, M. and Gartner, W. (2007), “Customer-based brand equity for a destination”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 400-421. Kwortnik, R.J. Jr. (2006), “Carnival cruise lines: burnishing the brand”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 286-300. Kwortnik, R.J. (2008), “Shipscape influence on the leisure cruise experience”, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 289-311. Lemmetyinen, A. (2017), “Safe, secure and sustainable: attributes of a strong cruise brand”, in Dowling, R. and Weeden, C. (Eds), Cruise Ship Tourism, 2nd ed., CABI, Oxfordshire OX10 8DE, Oxfordshire. Lemmetyinen, A. and Go, F.M. (2010), “Building a brand identity in a network of cruise baltic’s destinations – a multi-authoring approach” Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 519-531. Loewenthal, K.M. (2004), An Introduction to Psychological Tests and Scales, 2 ed., Psychology Press, Hove. Miller, A.R. and Grazer, W.F. (2002), “The North American cruise market and Australian tourism”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 221-234. Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P. and Moscardo, G. (2009), “Linking travel motivation, tourist self-image and destination brand personality”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 45-59. Papathanassis, A. and Beckmann, I. (2011), “Assessing the ‘poverty of cruise theory’ hypothesis”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 153-174. Pearce, P.L. (1993), “Fundamentals of tourist motivation”, in Pearce, D. and Butler, R. (Eds), Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp. 85-105. Pearce, P.L. (2005), Tourist Behaviour: Themes and Conceptual Schemes, Channel View Publications, Clevedon. Petrick, J.F. (2003), “Measuring cruise passengers’ perceived value”, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 7 Nos 3/4, pp. 251-258. Petrick, J.F. (2004a), “Are loyal visitors desired visitors?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 463-470.

VOL. 71 NO. 4 2016

TOURISM REVIEW

PAGE 257

Petrick, J.F. (2004b), “The role of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers’ behavioral intentions”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 397-407. Petrick, J.F. and Sirakaya, E. (2004), “Segmenting cruisers by loyalty”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 472-475. Petrick, J.F., Li, X. and Park, S.-Y. (2007), “Cruise passengers’ decision making processes”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-14. Petrick, J.F., Morais, D.D. and Norman, W.C. (2001), “An examination of the determinants of entertainment vacationers’ intentions to revisit”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 41-48. Pike, S. (2007), “Consumer-based brand equity for destinations: practical DMO performance measures”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 51-61. Pike, S. and Bianchi, C. (2016), “Destination brand equity for Australia: testing a model of CBBE in short-haul and long-haul markets”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 114-134. Pike, S.D., Bianchi, C., Kerr, G.F. and Patti, C. (2010), “Consumer-based brand equity for Australia as a long haul tourism destination in an emerging market”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 434-439. Plog, S. (2001), “Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 13-24.


Sirgy, M.J. and Su, C. (2000), “Destination image, self-congruity, and travel behaviour: toward an integrated model”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 340-352. Steiger, J.H. (1990), “Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 173-180. Teye, V. and Leclerc, D. (2003), “The white Caucasian and ethnic minority cruise markets: some motivational perspectives”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 227-242. Yarnal, C. and Kerstetter, D. (2005), “Casting off: an exploration of cruise ship space, group tour behavior, and social interaction”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 368-390.

Further reading Petrick, J.F. (2005), “Segmenting cruise passengers with price sensitivity”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 753-762.

Corresponding author Arja Lemmetyinen can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]


VOL. 71 NO. 4 2016