Online branding: Development of hotel branding ...

Tourism Management 57 (2016) 180e192

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Online branding: Development of hotel branding through interactivity theory Albert A. Barreda a, *, Anil Bilgihan b, Khaldoon Nusair c, Fevzi Okumus d a

Hospitality and Restaurant Administration, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, USA College of Business, Florida Atlantic University, Florida, FL, USA c Marketing Department, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman d Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, Florida, FL, USA b

h i g h l i g h t s Website interactivity (WI) is an online branding tool. WI positively influences brand image and brand awareness. When customers have solid brand knowledge, they are more likely to perceive the brand as valuable. Two-way communication and user control positively impact the dimensions of brand knowledge.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 21 April 2016 Received in revised form 23 April 2016 Accepted 12 June 2016

The present study aims to develop and test a theory-based model of website interactivity as an online branding tool. It explores the relationships among website interactivity, the dimensions of brand knowledge, and brand value in the context of hotel booking websites. An online questionnaire was completed by four hundred forty two (n ¼ 442) responses who booked a hotel room in the previous year. Leaning on the fundamentals of branding literature and the website interactivity theory, a model was designed and seven hypotheses were tested. A two-phase analysis was considered, first a Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and then a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) were conducted to test hypotheses. The results of the study show that the dimensions of website interactivity, namely two-way communication and user control, positively impact the dimensions of brand knowledge, namely brand awareness and brand image, which in turn impact brand value. We offer both theoretical and managerial implications. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Brand knowledge Brand awareness Brand image Brand value Online branding Website interactivity

1. Introduction The Internet is a powerful branding tool for many businesses as it offers numerous ways to promote a business online. Online branding is particularly important for service providers (e.g., hotels) who don't have a tangible product. Thus, it is considered by many service organizations as a competitive marketing instrument that offers many opportunities. The Internet has been recognized as an influential medium that has changed the way hotel brands conduct business and the way travelers and hotel brands interact

* Corresponding author. 901 S. National Ave., Springfield, MO 65897, USA. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.A. Barreda), Abilgihan@ fau.edu (A. Bilgihan), [email protected] (K. Nusair), [email protected] (F. Okumus). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.06.007 0261-5177/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

€g üt & Onur Tas¸, 2012). Businesses in general are still exploring for (O competent ways to establish strong relationships with consumers and to build their brands through online channels (Shih, Chen, & Chen, 2013). Numerous industries have migrated their marketing and operations online (Moss, Wulf, & Mullen, 2013). For instance, in the hospitality industry, the Internet is an important distribution channel and it also offers distinct opportunities to build brands online. The distinctive value that the Internet offers over conventional media is the capacity to interact with consumers. In the case of the lodging sector, this permits hotel practitioners to adjust their presentation to adapt specific travelers' needs and likes. Contrary to other forms of media, the Internet assists hotel brands to create long-term relationships with their travelers as it allows a unique reciprocal communication. It is an important medium for numerous reasons, for instance it provides an interactive platform

A.A. Barreda et al. / Tourism Management 57 (2016) 180e192

where global users can interact with brands and other user without too much effort (Nikitina, Rudolph, & Glimm, 2012). In travel and tourism industries, an organization's/brand's website offers useful insights to customers (Ku & Chen, 2015). One important attribute that distinguishes the latest marketing channel from conventional media is the interactivity (Liu, 2012; Wang, Meng, & Wang, 2013). Website interactivity helps a company to communicate its brand messages to Internet users. It helps communicating with consumers directly, generating exclusive and individual interactions with them. As a central aspect in technology-mediated communication, Website interactivity has been identified as a critical component to create strong brands (Coyle & Thorson, 2001; Voorveld, Van Noort, & Duijn, 2013). Regardless of its significance, very limited research was identified in the hospitality literature that investigates the influential role of interactivity on brand knowledge and brand value. Coyle, Smith, and Platt (2012) identify online interactivity as a strategic advance for brands and highlight the need for empirical research that might progress the comprehension of system-mediated interactivity, especially in the formation of brands. To this date very few researchers in the travel, tourism and hospitality field have devoted efforts to investigate the persuasive impact of website interactivity on branding constructs. Therefore, this study aims to close this research gap with the conceptualization and the impact of the dimensions of website interactivity, namely social interactivity and system interactivity, on the dimensions of brand knowledge (e.g., brand awareness and brand image) and brand value. Additionally, other contributions of this investigation are to assist hoteliers in strategic approaches to build and reinforce a positive brand image and the formation of brand awareness through the use of the dimensions of website interactivity. The present study is structured as follows. First, it begins with a conceptual elaboration of the constructs of the suggested framework; next, it presents the background of the study by reviewing the previous work in the online travel domain and information technology literature to present the arguments for the aim of the study. In the methodology section, the design of the research and data collection methods is explained. Findings are then proposed. Finally, managerial implications for hoteliers in addition to limitations of the study are discussed. 2. Literature review This research draws on seven streams, (1) the advancement of the Internet (2) e-Commerce (3) interactivity theory; (4) website interactivity theory; (5) website interactivity as an antecedent of branding constructs; (6) brand knowledge; and (7) brand value. Each stream is discussed in turn below. 2.1. The advancements of the internet The Internet is considered an effective medium that has revolutionized the manner hospitality industry experts approach business and the way consumers interact. It allows businesses to simplify their business processes, to communicate (internal and external), to decrease operating expenses, to improve productivity, and to establish strong relationships with customers more effectively than ever before (Kim, Rachjaibun, Han, & Lee, 2011). The competences of web applications are extraordinary (Martins, Oliveira, & Popovi c, 2014). Consequently, nowadays, firms invest substantial amounts of capital into the development and the adoption of Internet-related technologies (Gubbi, Buyya, Marusic, & Palaniswami, 2013). Forman, Goldfarb, and Greenstein (2012a, 2012b) indicate that organizations in the US are substantially investing in the Internet

181

across several industries as firms acknowledge the capacity of the Internet in their financial performance and productivity. Another benefit that the web proposes to marketers is the interactivity. According to Liu (2012), the web is an innovative medium that accelerates the information exchange, which guides firms to an effective communication with its customers and provide to innovative product improvement processes. It has also been considered a unique medium that helps the transformation of the marketing function (Faqih, 2016). The Internet adoption has increased vastly in recent years, and so has its strategic application (Taylor & Strutton, 2010). The Internet presents the opportunity for cost efficiencies, geographic expansion and new opportunities for interacting with consumers (Mathew & Mishra, 2014). This is why the Internet as an indispensable channel across marketing arenas has emerged as a successful and cost-effective platform. 2.2. Electronic commerce and the online interactivity E-commerce in general has grown precipitously with the propagation of commercial websites and the escalating approval of virtual transactions (Fang, Qureshi, Sun, McCole, Ramsey, & Lim, 2014). Recently, e-commerce sales grew by 21.1 percent (Bilgihan, Kandampully, & Zhang, 2016) and the worldwide virtual commerce reached to 1.23 trillion in 2013, which represent around more than 25 percent of total sales. The total number of online users is expected to reach almost 3.5 billion by 2013 from around 2.2 billion at the end of 2011 (The Interactive Media in Retail Group, 2013). The United States continues being the world's major electronic market (U.S. Commerce Department, 2013). The essence and attribute of e-commerce are mainly the distribution of information, preserving company-consumer relationships, and executing business transactions through telecommunication systems (Hartono, Holsapple, Kim, Na, & Simpson, 2014). E-commerce involves the buyer-seller relationships and business operations between consumers and businesses and between business and business (Chiu, Wang, Fang, & Huang, 2014). A distinctive attribute of e-commerce is that buyers do not have the opportunity to physically experience the service or use other senses to perceive the quality of the product, as they generally do in a conventional store or service provider. As a consequence, the dimensions of website interactivity play a crucial role on influencing the perception of consumers (Palla, Tsiotsou, & Zotos, 2013). For services (e.g. hotels), the role of interactivity is even more critical due to the distinct characteristics of them. The fast development of e-commerce and the uniqueness of this innovative exchange station emphasize the significance of comprehending the potential power of website interactivity as a tool to form relationships between companies and consumers (Palla et al., 2013). A web user should perceive the website as interactive to make purchasing decisions (Wang et al., 2013). Low-interactive websites generate insecurity about the brand and making a purchase (Chen, Hsu, & Lin, 2010). 2.3. E-commerce in the hotel sector In the hotel sector, most lodging firms have indicated that the Internet presents significant strategic opportunities. These opportunities help to establish a long-lasting relationship with consumers (Xiang, Magnini, & Fesenmaier, 2015). Almost every lodging firm now have online presence by locating their room inventory and hotel services for travelers to access through their commercial websites (Wen, 2012) or third party websites. Because of the development of the Internet as a marketing channel, the hotel sector has intended to maintain the same pace of technology adoption as consumers (Beritelli & Schegg, 2016). The Internet as a

182


channel for the circulation of hotel services has altered the context of transaction and product selection for travelers as well as the lodging sector (Toh, DeKay, & Raven, 2011). Nowadays, hoteliers realize the complexity to manage their inventory, to optimize profits, to establish strong relationships, and to maintain a sustainable competitive edge through their commercial Websites (Toh et al., 2011). An outcome of the superior exposure to information granted to prosumers (professional consumers) is that these prosumers have more decision and selection power than ever before (Belkhamza, 2013). Evidently the Internet is an essential marketing tool for hotel firms (Jiang, Ren, & Liu, 2012). According to King and Jainchill (2012) in the next few years, the Internet will account for a third of all hotel bookings. It is projected that the Internet will progressively account for much more than the present amount of online hotel sales (Munoz, 2014). Additionally, travelers are investing more time surfing the web in search of pertinent information, interactive branded sites and trusted hotel websites (Kim, Chung, & Lee, 2011). Therefore, in a context where there are excess of information and unlimited providers, consumers become more concerned about how the hotel brand website interacts and establishes relationships with online users (Polites, Williams, Karahanna, & Seligman, 2012). In this commercial context, a greater understanding into traveler perceptions for online hotel brands is critically required (Atchariyachanvanich & Hitoshi, 2011). An increasing number of travelers seek and explore hotel reviews, amenities, locations, and prices online before having intentions to buy. While interacting with the website and exploring information before booking hotel services online, consumers also consider the brand (Chiang & Jang, 2007). The brand is certainly a significant and decisive aspect in choosing homogeneous alternatives on the Internet. Brand is a central component in hotel e-commerce because travelers care about the consistency of the service, the trustworthiness of the company, and the excellence of the relationship (Flanagin, Metzger, Pure, Markov, & Hartsell, 2014). Brands are habitually associated with value, consistency, and superiority (Delgado-Ballester & Fernandez, 2015). The recognition, the image, and the value of the brand are definitely meaningful elements in choosing homogeneous alternatives on the Internet (Leung, Xue, & Bai, 2015). In brief, the Internet presents substantial opportunities for hotel brands to strengthen their relationships with travelers. Travelers will develop brand knowledge by recognizing the brand under different circumstances, by forming a positive brand image, and by perceiving the brand as valuable based on their experiences with interactive websites. 2.4. Interactivity theory Interactivity theory proposes that interactivity is a process of message exchange (Voorveld et al., 2013). It postulates that the superiority of the interactivity influences individuals’ perceptions (Yang & Huang, 2011). The more reciprocal a message exchange is, the stronger the perception of interactivity is (Voorveld et al., 2013). An extensive body of literature has been proposed in relation to interactivity theory in human communications (Boczkowski & Mitchelstein, 2012). Campbell and Wright (2008) state that, from a sociological point of view, interactivity refers to the relationship between two or more individuals who, in specific conditions, reciprocally adjust their conduct and behaviors to each other. Alternative body of knowledge investigates interactivity among consumers and technology such as online interactivity (Cebi, 2013; Chen et al., 2010). This body of research has matured from the technology practice and mainly concentrates on refining the interactions between users

and technology (Forman & Zeebroeck, 2012; Huang, 2010). Aryanto (2008) indicates that research in the area of human-technology interfaces have established user control (i.e., system interactivity) and two-way communication (i.e., social interactivity) as the fundamental elements of interactivity. In this study, efforts will narrow the investigation of interactivity by centering mostly on how online hotel room purchasers perceive interactivity in a technology-mediated communication setting. 2.5. Website interactivity Website interactivity is a concept that deals with the influence of engagement, interest, and appeal that may be an intrinsic characteristic in technology-mediated groups (Palla et al., 2013). In this study, we consider the website interactivity to be a subsection of interactivity, which is centered exclusively on the interaction between websites and individuals. In this sense, website interactivity is viewed as an essential high-tech capability for a business attempting to establish long-term relationships with its consumers (Neelotpaul, 2011), and a central determinant for building brands online (Voorveld et al., 2013) as it allows a reciprocal communication with the system and other users. Coyle et al. (2012) propose that an advantageous perspective for examining technology-mediated communication is the website interactivity. In more narrow terms, website interactivity is a concept that deals with the influence of engagement, interest, and appeal that may be an intrinsic characteristic in technology-mediated groups (Palla et al., 2013). For the aim of the present study, we uniquely consider the perceptual attribute of website interactivity in relation to the interactive and collaborative participants. In agreement with Vernuccio, Barbarossa, Giraldi, & Ceccotti, (2012), we define interactivity as a communication process that presents web user control and permits them to communicate reciprocally. Current literature indicates that for a more real illustration of the dual dimensions of website interactivity, studies devote user control as an expression of system interactivity and two-way communication as an expression of social interactivity (Wang et al., 2013). Two-way communication (i.e., social interactivity) refers to reciprocal communication between individuals. The perception of two-way communication may be perceived as the interaction between the users and the system (e.g. website) (e.g. through e-mail, chat, Tweet, or texting to customer service, etc.). The system interactivity perspective is more concerned with the ability of the user to select content and guide the interaction (Lowry et al., 2006). User control is manifested when individuals are granted the opportunity to select the content and influence the communication. For instance, Web users may feel themselves as possessing user control because they have the capacity to select without restrictions (through an internal search engine). 2.6. Website interactivity as a branding tool Interactivity is one of the most essential design components in any commercial website (Auger, 2005). The significance of interactivity for Internet-based e-commerce arises principally from its capacity to have positive short and long-term influences on customer perceptions (Schlosser, 2000). Coyle et al. (2012), in their discussion of microblog interactions on consumers’ perceptions of brand elements, recognize interactivity as a strategic advance and highlight the demand for empirical research that might progress the comprehension of system-mediated interactivity, especially in the formation of brands. Over the Internet consumers interact in a mechanize setting contrary to a human mediated traditional face to face setting


(Gallos, Rybski, Liljeros, Havlin, & Makse, 2012). An effective branded website should be interactive (Salciuviene, Keeling, & Tiasuwan, 2013). Numerous e-commerce researchers and practitioners aim to find out how a firm could build its desired brand awareness and brand image in a computerized environment in the same manner as firms frequently do in a traditional setting (Yu, Lin, & Chen, 2013). The answer to such questions is portrayed in website interactivity aspects of the Internet (Voorveld et al., 2013). Website interactivity implicates involving consumers openly, generating an exclusive and individualized relationship with them (Guillory & Sundar, 2014). The significance of effective Website interactivity is fundamental to successful brands because of its capacity to generate continuing effects on consumer perception and behavior (Yoo, Lee, & Park, 2010). For hotel brands specifically, Website interactivity may be generally understood as any act a hotel user or a hotel website executes when an individual is browsing the hotel website. Website interactivity presents simplified communications, personalization of displayed content and information, and also enjoyment for Web users (Yang, Li, & Yang, 2013). Such interactivity allows businesses to participate in instantaneous and real conversations with current and prospective consumers, in that way refining significantly the superiority of communication between the brand and its consumers (Hwang & Kandampully, 2012). This guarantees a deeper and long-term relationship between the brand and consumers (Jih, Lee, & Tsai, 2010). 2.7. Branding constructs 2.7.1. Brand knowledge Researchers have extensively embraced one conceptualization of brand knowledge that includes the associative network memory framework. The associative network memory framework views semantic memory or knowledge as consisting of a set of nodes and links (Keller, 1993). Based on this framework, a brand has a node in consumer's mind that is related to a range of other nodes. Every class of brand node is connected to the brand to form its brand associations in consumers' mind (Hoeffler & Keller, 2003). To understand brand knowledge in it's truly essence, it is necessary to state that brand knowledge refers to the perceptive illustration of the brand (Esch, Langner, Schmitt, & Geus, 2006). Brand knowledge is understood regarding the individual meaning about a brand stored in the minds of consumers (Peter & Olson 2001). Understanding brand knowledge is critical to comprehend consumer decision making. Brand knowledge influences what comes to mind when individuals think about a brand in specific (Keller, 2003). Specifically, brand knowledge is defined as a consistent of brand node in consumers' mind to which a diverse set of associations are connected (Keller, 1993). In the present study, we define brand knowledge as brand associations in travelers' memory to which a diversity of connections is related. Comprehending the formation and composition of brand knowledge is critical because the components of brand knowledge impact what appears in the mind of customers when they intentionally think about a specific brand. For instance, when what comes to consumers' mind when travelers see an advertisement for a specific hotel enterprise. The most accepted dimensions of brand knowledge are brand awareness and brand image (Maio Mackay, 2001). These two dimensions of consumer brand knowledge have been frequently cited in the marketing literature (Esch et al., 2006). The appropriate components that discriminate brand knowledge and influence consumer perception of value are the elements of brand awareness in terms of brand recall and brand recognition and brand image in terms of the positive, strong, and distinctive brand perceptions hold

183

in consumers’ memory (Pappu, Quester, & Cooksey, 2005). 2.7.2. Brand awareness Brand awareness is a critical consideration as a first dimension of brand knowledge. It refers to the strength of the brand node in memory (i.e., how easy it is for the consumer to remember the brand) (Keller, 1993). It is understood as the ability of the individual to identify a brand within a category and within specific conditions €llü, 2012). In essence, brand awareness associates (Huang & Sarigo to the probability that a brand name might arise to consumers’ mind and the simplicity with which this happens (Aaker, 1991). Brand awareness involves recognition and recall of the brand (Lerman & Garbarino, 2002). Brand recognition refers to the ability of an individual to verify previous experience with the brand when this brand is presented as a signal (Holden, 1993). Brand recall refers to ability of an individual to retrieve the brand when offered the category of the product, the necessities satisfied by the category, and/or similar forms of probe as a signal (Davis, Golicic, & Marquardt, 2008). 2.7.3. Brand image Brand image is another consideration of brand knowledge suggested in the literature. Consistent with the associative network memory model of brand knowledge, brand image is conceptualized as perceptions about a brand as revealed by the brand associations retained in the mind of consumers (Keller, 1993). It refers to strong, favorable, and unique brand associations (Esch et al., 2006). These associations are created from different sources including branded experiences, product details, product benefits, price details, and packaging, just to name a few (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999). According to Keller (1993), these associations can be influenced when individuals interact with the brand. In the lodging industry, brand image has been referred as the robust, favorable, and different hotel brand associations held in travelers’ memory (Wu, Liao, & Tsai, 2012). Hotel brand image has been also observed as synonymous to status that relates to the general status and perception of a hotel brand (Kwun & Oh, 2007). The current literature shows that few studies have explored the prospective relationship between a webpage configuration and brand image, specifically the correlation between Website interactivity features and brand image. This statement has been supported by several authors that state that little research has been devoted to explore the effects of Website interactivity on brand image (Chang, Tekchandaney, Rangaswamy, & Simpson, 2003). 2.7.4. Consumer brand value perceptions Brand value proposes that individuals prefer to relate themselves with product and services that represent strong and unique brands (Keller, 1993). According to several researchers, brand value is a vital topic in the hotel sector, and its influential power on consumer behavior can successfully assist to ensure long-term marketing strategy (Bailey & Ball, 2006; Kayaman & Arasli, 2007; Kim, Jin-Sun, & Kim, 2008; Xu & Chan, 2010). The desire to understand how to build hotel brand value has received significant devotion from hoteliers, scholars and brand managers (Hsu, Oh, & Assaf, 2012). Different arguments have been emerged in the literature of the importance of hotel brand value in the online (Simmons, Thomas, & Truong, 2010) and offline environments (So & King, 2010). Building brand value is perceived as a critical aspect of brand building (Keller, 1993). Brand value is assumed to create numerous advantages for consumers and for a business. For consumers, brand value means added value, diminution of risks and search expenses, and a positive influence of their responses such as intentions to pay price premiums (Aaker, 1992), to

184


choose the same brand (Valette-Florence, Guizani, & Merunka, 2011), and to repurchase the brand (Nah, Eschenbrenner, & DeWester, 2011). For brand managers, brand value means an ability to charge price premiums, to increase market share, and to maintain increase customer-base (Kim, Kim, & An, 2003). Notwithstanding the desire to understand how to build hotel brand value, the empirical and theoretical research is still scarce (Kayaman & Arasli, 2007), particularly, research attempting to explore how to build valuable hotel brand in an online environment is practically null. Among the works in relation to hotel brand value, Bailey and Ball (2006) indicate that lodging is a brand value business. By developing value in its brand, a hotel firm has the capacity to sell its brand name to investors and developers, and also has the capacity to reach customers, thus creating demand to sustain growth. Bailey and Ball (2006) define hotel brand value as “the value that consumers and hotel property owners associate with a hotel brand, and the impact of these associations on their behavior and the subsequent financial performance of the brand (p. 34).” In the present study consumer-based brand value refers to the added (incremental) value that a brand provides to a product (Yoo & Donthu, 2001). On the other hand, Hsu et al. (2012) identify the value of a hotel brand in the minds of travelers, affected by its essential assets, namely, brand image, brand awareness, management trust, brand reliability, perceived quality, and brand loyalty of travelers. One of the principal obstacles for the hotel sector is tangibilizing the intangible hotel experience (Kayaman & Arasli, 2007; Xie & Chen, 2014). One strategy to oppress this obstacle can be by developing an interactive strong brand, which symbolizes the hotel offerings and appeals to travelers’ real features of a tangible product/service (Bian & Liu, 2011). Well-managed hotel brands allow travelers to better picture and comprehend the immaterial margin of the hotel offerings (Alonso-Almeida & Bremser, 2013). The Internet and its interactive capabilities presents new avenues of opportunities for hotels to build and maintain strong brand values through virtual interactions during browsing the brand page. Rios and Riquelme (2010) state that the Internet has the capability to erode brand value for multiple reasons: the emergence of new business models on the Internet (e.g. “name your price”), the convenience of vast amount of information including price points, product features, and tools (e.g. price comparison) and not least, the admission to a considerable number of vendors. For the lodging industry, brand value is a vital asset (Oh & Hsu, 2014); therefore building valuable hotel brand is a worthwhile investment (Xiao, O'Neill, & Mattila, 2012). 2.8. Hypotheses development Few studies have explored the prospective relationship between a web page configuration and brand elements, specifically the correlation between website interactivity features, the dimensions of brand knowledge namely brand awareness and brand image, and consumer-base brand value. These statements have been supported by several authors that state that little research has been devoted to explore the effects of website interactivity on brand elements (Chang et al., 2003; Voorveld et al., 2013). Many believe that it seems instinctive that hotel websites that incorporate features of website interactivity are advantageous to build stronger brands online. But, there is few research and empirical support to sustain this assertion. Fig. 1 presents the theory-driven model proposed in this study. Initial findings of past research demonstrated that website interactivity is correlated with favorable perceptions of the emotional connection with the brand (Müller & Chandon, 2004)

and commercial Websites (Coyle & Thorson, 2001). These initial findings demonstrated that website interactivity is correlated with favorable perceptions of the emotional connection with the image of the brand (Müller & Chandon, 2004) and commercial websites (Coyle & Thorson, 2001). How interactivity influences the dimensions of brand knowledge may be clarified by the influence of interactivity to reciprocal communication and control, which are the essential dimensions of this dominant construct in e-commerce (Aryanto, 2008) and relationship marketing research (Coyle et al., 2001). An intrinsic component of website interactivity is that it enables social interactions in a form of a two-way communication (Jiang, Chan, Tan, & Chua, 2010) between brands and site users and offers them control over the communication process (Stevenson, Bruner, & Kumar, 2000). Interactivity is the process that establishes a strong connection among consumers, the organization, and its brands (Madhavaram, Badrinarayanan, & McDonald, 2005). The perceptions of control and a two-way communication help establishing strong connections and also indicate that a reciprocal relationship exist between customers and brands. The more brands know about their consumers and about the information they seek, the more positive the brand is perceived by their customers. User control lets consumers to be properly selective for their own information necessities, therefore, augmenting the fit between users’ diverse needs for information and the content presented in the website (Ariely, 2000). High user control enables users with the competence to tailor the information by filtering out what is important. This allows users to be more collaborative and participative in their interactions with the Website (Jiang et al., 2010). This further permits users to be more aware of the brand features, benefits, and value proposition. For consumers being able to choose the content, sequence of communication and timing represents unique opportunities to be aware of the brand in a deeply manner. Interactivity plays a key role in brand awareness given its capacity to product research and knowledge about the brand (Madhavaram et al., 2005). An intrinsic component of website interactivity is that it plays a key role in brand awareness given its capacity to product research and knowledge about the brand. The greater the user control the more likely it is for a consumer to remember the experience with that branded website. Keng and Lin (2006) indicate that when users experience interaction and ability to control the communication process, they will recall and recognize a brand than a person with no interactivity. Madhavaram et al. (2005) and Fiore and Jin (2003) propose that those who perceive they guide the interaction tend to perceive brand recall, brand recognition, and brand association. Based on the above discussion, it is reasonable to assume that user control will affect user perceptions, recognition and recall of the experience with the hotel branded website. Therefore, we hypothesized that: H1. There is a significant positive causal relationship between active control of a hotel Website (system interactivity) and hotel brand awareness. H2. There is a significant positive causal relationship between two-way communications of a hotel Website (social interactivity) and hotel brand awareness. Another intrinsic component of website interactivity is that it enables social interactions in a form of two-way communications (Jiang & Benbasat, 2007) between brands and site users and offers them control over the communication process (Stevenson et al., 2000). The perceptions of control and a two-way communication help establishing strong connections and also indicate that a reciprocal relationship exist between the customer and the brand.


WEBSITE INTERACTIVITY

BRAND KNOWLEDGE

185

CONSUMER BRAND VALUE PERCEPTION

Brand Awareness

Control Brand Value Two-Way Brand Image

Fig. 1. A proposed website interactivity (WI) framework as a branding tool. Theory-driven model of website interactivity as a branding tool for hotels. Note: Control ¼ User Control (System Interactivity); Two-Way ¼ Two-way communication (Social Interactivity).

The more brands know about their consumers and about the information they seek, the more positive the brand is perceived by consumers. Madhavaram et al. (2005) and Fiore and Jin (2003) propose that those who perceive they guide the interaction tend to perceive brand image and brand association. Recently, Voorveld et al. (2013) suggest that website interactivity and its components does not only influence a more favorable brand evaluation but also influence strongly in the creation of positive perceptions that are in harmony with the image displayed on the brand's website. Based on the aforementioned considerations, it is rational to expect that two-way communication and user-control will affect user perceptions with the hotel branded Website. Therefore, we hypothesized that: H3. There is a significant positive causal relationship between user-control of a hotel Website (system interactivity) and hotel brand image. H4. There is a significant positive causal relationship between two-way communication of a hotel Website (social interactivity) and hotel brand image. Yoo, Donthu, and Lee (2000) suggest that brand awareness with strong associations develop an exclusive brand image. Recognition and recall help to draw those associations. When brand awareness is high among customers, it means the brand is familiar, reputable, and respectable (Yasin, Noor, & Mohamad, 2007). Research shows that when customers who recognize and recall a brand tend to form positive perceptions in their mind because recognizable products are frequently preferred to those that are less recognizable (Macdonald & Sharp, 2000). Therefore, we hypothesized that: H5. There is a significant positive causal relationship between hotel brand awareness and hotel brand image. As mentioned in the previous section, brand awareness is “the ability for a buyer to recognize or recall that a brand is a member of a certain product category” (Aaker, 1991, p. 61; Yoo & Donthu, €llü (2012) examine the association of 2001). Huang and Sarigo brand awareness with both customer mindset and product market

outcome measures. Their findings suggest that there is positive and direct association between brand awareness and brand value. Other researchers also have supported the awareness-value relationship (Kim & Kim, 2004; Yoo & Donthu, 2001; Yoo et al., 2000). Brands with superior brand awareness tend to be considered in consumers’ consideration sets and consequently selected and valued, in relation to unfamiliar brands (Aaker, 1991). Mohd Yasin et al. (2007) also suggest that consumer-based brand value is partially evaluated in terms of the awareness it evokes. This role differs on the degree of awareness that can be accomplished. In this study, the authors argue that the relationship between brand awareness and consumer-based brand value established in other contexts will hold in hotel brand websites as well. Therefore, we hypothesized that: H6. There is a significant positive causal relationship between hotel brand awareness and hotel brand value. Brand image is the results of positive, strong and unique perceptions of the brand stored in consumer's memory. It is frequently perceived as the combined influence of brand associations. It is the individual's perceptions of the tangible and intangible brand associations. Marketing researchers indicate that brand image is an essential element of consumer-base brand value (Faircloth, Capella, & Alford, 2001). Chen et al. (2010) indicates, in his study of green practices, that high value brands tend to present more positive brand associations (brand image) than low value brands. Davis et al. (2008) indicate that in a B2B context, positive brand image is strongly associated with brand value. Davis et al. (2008) hypothesize that brand image is positively related to brand value in the service context. Yet current empirical investigation has not distinctly explored the effect of positive brand image on brand value in the context of hotel brand websites. We hypothesized that: H7. There is a significant positive causal relationship between hotel brand image and hotel brand value. Table 1 present the set of hypotheses between website interactivity, brand knowledge and brand value.

186


Table 1 Summary of hypotheses. Hypotheses H1: H2: H3: H4: H5: H6: H7:

CONTROL TWO-WAY CONTROL TWO-WAY AWA AWA IMAGE

/ / / / / / /

(þ) (þ) (þ) (þ) (þ) (þ) (þ)

AWA AWA IMAGE IMAGE IMAGE VALUE VALUE

Control is positively related to brand awareness Two-way communications is positively related to brand awareness Control is positively related to brand image Two-way communications is positively related to brand image Brand awareness is positively related to brand image Brand awareness is positively related to brand value Brand image is positively related to brand value

Note: CONTROL ¼ System interactivity; TWO-WAY ¼ Social interactivity; AWA ¼ Brand Awareness; IMAGE ¼ Brand Image; VALUE ¼ Brand Value.

3. Research design

before distributing the final survey questionnaire.

This research aims to develop a theory-driven framework of website interactivity as a branding tool and examine seven postulated research hypotheses. In total, there are five latent variables considered in the present research: system interactivity (user control), social interactivity (two-way communication), brand awareness, brand image, and brand value. The questionnaire items were evaluated with 7-point Likert scales. As described in Table 2, all scales were adapted from previous research studies, with “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree” anchoring the scale. Minor modifications in wording were made in statements to fit the context of the hotel context. Essentially, the measurement items selected to test the model include, (a) Website Interactivity Scale (WIS), modified version of Jiang et al. (2010), (b) Brand Awareness (BAS), modified version of Davis et al. (2008), (c) Brand Image Scale (BCS), modified version of Davis et al. (2008), and (d) Brand Value Scale (BVS), modified version of Yoo and Donthu (2001). Table 2 shows the constructs, their measurement items and references. We conducted a preliminary examination that consisted on a self-administered online survey regarding the consequences of website interactivity. Participants' completed questionnaires were used to examine face validity and reliability issues (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009). This was completed with the purpose of first recognizing limitations with the questionnaire, second identifying grammatical or spelling errors, and third ensuring that participants comprehend the directions and question-items. Upon collection of the pilot phase results, minor revisions were made

3.1. Sampling and data collection The participants provided their responses through an online survey tool, Qualtrics. These responses were automatically sorted into SPSS 20; in this way it was possible to remove data entry errors. The questionnaire was sent to participants using MTurk platform. MTurk presents a virtual labor market where research tasks are published and selected by a diverse pool of workers (Goodman, Cryder, & Cheema, 2013). MTurk is increasingly utilized in psychological and marketing research because it delivers an extensive and diverse sample of possible respondents at reasonable costs (Mason & Suri, 2012). Current research indicates that the quality of the data obtained from MTurk is as reliable as from other, more traditional sources (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Moreover, another benefit of Mturk is that it allows behavioral investigators to specify the preferred profile of respondents (Crump, McDonnell, & Gureckis, 2013). The online questionnaire was completed by four hundred forty two (n ¼ 442) responses who booked a hotel room in the last year. The initial filter question of the online survey was for screening purposes, to ensure that only those respondents who have booked a hotel room in the past year using a hotel branded website (e.g. Hilton.com) participate in the study. Twenty participants did not pass the inspection check. This resulted in a total of 422 valid responses that have been used in the data analysis. In the context of structural equation modeling, recommendations for sample size range from as low as five respondents for each observed variable to

Table 2 Questionnaire items. Constructs

Question items

Origin

Website Interactivity Scale (WIS) User Control (system interactivity)

UC1. I Felt that I had a lot of control over my visiting experiences at the hotel website UC2. While I was on the hotel website, I could choose freely what I wanted to see. UC3. While surfing the hotel website, I had control over what I can do on the site. UC4. While surfing the hotel website, my actions decided the kind of experiences I get. TC1. This hotel website is effective in gathering visitor's feedback. TC2. This hotel website makes me feel like it wants to listen to its visitors. TC3. This hotel website encourages visitors to offer feedback. TC4. This hotel website gives visitors the opportunity to talk back. TC5.This hotel website facilitates two-way communication between the visitors and the site. BVS1. It makes sense to book hotel rooms/services from X hotel website instead of any other brand, even if they are the same. BVS2. Even if another hotel brand has same features as X, I would prefer to buy X. BVS3. If there is another hotel brand as good as X, I prefer to buy X. BVS4. If another hotel brand is not different from X in any way, it seems smarter to purchase from hotel X. IMG1. This hotel is known as a company that takes good care of their trade guests. IMG2. We can predict how this hotel brand will perform. IMG3. In comparison to other hotel brands, this hotel brand is known to consistently deliver very high quality. IMG4. In comparison to other hotel brands, this hotel brand is highly respected. IMG5. This hotel's brand has a very rich history. AWA1. The name of this hotel is well-known in the hotel industry. AWA2. This hotel is recognized as a strong hotel brand. AWA3. In comparison to other hotels, this hotel is a leading brand in the industry.

Jiang et al. (2010)

Website Interactivity Scale (WIS) Two-way Communication (Social Interactivity)

Brand Value Scale (BVS)

Brand Image Scale (BIS)

Brand Awareness Scale (BAS)

Jiang et al. (2010)

Yoo et al. (2001)

Davis et al. (2008)

Davis et al. (2008)


as high as more than 50 (Jaccard & Wan, 1996). In this study the sample size was represented by 20 respondents for each observed variable.

Table 4 Descriptive statistics for demographic variables of the sample by education, income, and ethnicity. Demographic Variables

3.2. Methods of data analysis Initially, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has been applied to estimate the competence of the CFA model. In the following stage of the study the structural model was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM). The overall model fit in both measurement and structural models was investigated considering the following goodness-of-fit indices: Chi-Square/df ratio, CFI, TLI, RMSEA, GFA, AGFA, NFI, PNFI, RFI, and IFI, (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). Data was analyzed using the statistical software SPSS 20 and AMOS18. It was indispensable to corroborate the reliability of the scales. Since the constructs and their respective items in the online questionnaire have not been studied in the hotel website context, a major concern was the scale's internal consistency to the extent at which the items of the scale link together. Internal consistency was examined considering the Cronbach's alpha coefficient and the scale composite reliability (SCR). According to Gliem and Gliem (2003) Cronbach's alpha scale for internal consistency and the SCR must exceed 0.70 to ensure internal consistency. All of the latent variables had reliability coefficients that exceed the suggested threshold of 0.70. Incomplete questionnaires and the cases with wrong and missing data were deleted and not considered. The listwise deletion method was considered to deal with missing data (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). 4. Results As presented in Table 3, the respondents consisted of 62.3% males and 37.7% female, with an age range from 18 to 66. The largest age group of between 26 and 35 years old (45%) and the smallest age group was 66 years old or more (0.2%). Most of the respondents were single (61.4%), while the second largest group was married (32.2%). Table 4 displays the frequency distribution of the respondents’ Education, Income, and Ethnicity. Of all respondents, around 89.1% completed some higher education. The largest educational group was “four-year bachelor degree” (41.9%), whereas the second largest educational group has “some college background” (28.2%). And “graduate school” and “associate degree” were slightly fewer than the second group, at 9% and 10% respectively. The largest group for annual income was between $25,000 and $50,000 (27.4%), and $50,001 and $75,000

Table 3 Descriptive statistics for demographics by gender, age, and marital status. Demographic Variables Gender (n ¼ 422) Male Female Age (n ¼ 422) 25 or younger 26e35 36e45 46e55 56e65 66 or older Marital status (n ¼ 422) Married Separated Divorced Widowed Single Prefer not to answer

Frequency

Valid percentage

263 159

62.3 37.7

145 190 55 23 8 1

34.4 45.0 13.0 5.5 1.9 0.2

136 4 15 2 259 6

32.2 0.9 3.6 0.5 61.4 1.4

187

Education (n ¼ 422) High school Associate degree (2 year) Some college Bachelor's degree (4 year) Master's degree Doctorate degree Annual Income (n ¼ 496) $25,000 or less $25,001 e $50,000 $50,001 e $75,000 $75,001 e $100,000 $100,001 e $150,000 $150,001 e $200,000 $200,001 or more Prefer not to answer Ethnicity (n ¼ 496) Caucasian Asian/Island Pacific African American Hispanic Other

Frequency

Valid percentage

45 42 119 177 33 6

10.7 10.0 28.2 41.9 7.8 1.2

79 133 102 56 29 8 6 9

18.7 31.5 24.2 13.3 6.9 1.9 1.4 2.1

330 42 25 22 3

78.2 10.0 5.9 5.2 0.7

(24.2%) respectively, with 74.4% of participants’ annual income being less than $75,000 and 23.5% of that being more than $75,000 (including $75,000), and 2.1% preferred not to answer. Of all respondents, around 78.2% were Caucasian. The second largest ethnicity group was “Asian/Pacific” (10%), whereas the third largest ethnicity group was “African American” (5.9%). “Hispanic” and “other” ethnic categories were slightly fewer than the other groups, at 5.2% and 0.7% respectively. 4.1. Analysis of the measurement model (CFA) In this study, composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha indices were computed to evaluate scale reliabilities of each of the five constructs. The indices were above the minimum 0.70 for all of them. The goodness-of-fit measures were applied to assess the overall model fit of the measurement and the structural model. The overall fit indices for the suggested model was acceptable, with Chisquare/df equal to 2.2, root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) of 0.055, normed fit index (NFI) of 0.94, comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.97, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of 0.914, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) of 0.87, PNFI of 0.783, incremental fit index (IFI) of 0.97, and relative fit index (RFI) of 0.93. All the aforementioned fit indices for the measurement of the proposed model are contemplated to have a good fit (Hair et al., 2009). After obtaining acceptable overall fit indices, the measurement model was examined for its reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Table 5 depicts the results of construct reliability, item reliability, standardized loadings, and AVE indices. This phase in the measurement validation involved the examination of alpha coefficients for each group of measures to measure reliability. Cronbach's alpha is commonly contemplated to examine the reliability of a multi-item scale (Kim, Chung et al., 2011; Kim, Rachjaibun et al., 2011). The results of the constructs' reliabilities were beyond the minimum value of 0.70 (ranging from 0.833 to 0.930); an indication of high reliability for the five latent variables. Following Garbarino and Johnson (1999), the average variance extracted (AVE) was contemplated to examine convergent validity issues. As described in Table 6, the values of the AVE ranged from 0.581 to 0.739, exceeding the minimum value of 0.50; a sign that convergent validity was not a concern (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999) (see Table 6).

188


Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables of the sample by Education. Construct

Variables

Standardized loadings

Composite reliability

AVE

Item reliability

User control

UC1 UC2 UC3 UC4 TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 AWA1 AWA2 AWA3 IMG1 IMG2 IMG3 IMG4 IMG5 EQT1 EQT2 EQT3 EQT4

0.82* 0.69* 0.82* 0.72* 0.85* 0.90* 0.82* 0.79* 0.76* 0.81* 0.94* 0.79* 0.76* 0.65* 0.90* 0.92* 0.70* 0.74* 0.93* 0.90* 0.85*

0.833

0.60

0.85

0.922

0.70

0.92

0.834

0.72

0.88

0.898

0.63

0.86

0.930

0.78

0.91

Two-way communication

Brand awareness

Brand image

Brand value

AVE: Average variance extracted. ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.001.

Table 6 Discriminant validity.

VAL TC AWA IMG UC

CR

AVE

MSV

ASV

VAL

TC

AWA

IMG

UC

0.918 0.914 0.887 0.892 0.846

0.739 0.682 0.724 0.628 0.581

0.310 0.355 0.540 0.540 0.355

0.184 0.183 0.225 0.336 0.250

0.859 0.386 0.361 0.557 0.385

0.826 0.242 0.412 0.596

0.851 0.735 0.415

0.792 0.570

0.762

Note: UC, user control; TC, two-way communication; IMG, brand image; VAL, brand value; AWA, brand awareness; CR, composite reliability; AVE, averance variance extracted. MSV, Maximum Shared Squared Variance; ASV, Average Shared Squared Variance (ASV). The square root of AVE is highlighted in bold.

4.2. Structural model assessment (SEM) After validating the goodness of fit of the measurement model, the structural model was tested to examine the hypothesized seven relationships among the five constructs. The proposed theorydriven model was tested by the SEM using AMOS 18. The results of the structural model suggest that the overall fit statistics reveal an acceptable model fit (Diamantopoulos & Sigua, 2006). Chisquare/df equal of 2.3, RMSEA of 0.056, normed fit index (NFI) of 0.94, comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.963, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of 0.914, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) of 0.89, PNFI of

0.782, incremental fit index (IFI) of 0.964, and relative fit index (RFI) of 0.93. A summary of the results including path coefficients is displayed in Table 7 and Fig. 2. The model was evaluated considering the maximum likelihood method. The success of building a strong and valuable brand online depends on the level of interactivity between providers and consumers. The importance of interactivity for the Internet-based ecommerce arises mainly from its capacity to have favorable short and long-term influence on customer perceptions (Guillory & Sundar, 2014), especially in the hotel context. In recent studies, hospitality and tourism scholars recognize interactivity as a strategic advance and highlight the demand for empirical research that might improve the understanding of system-mediated interactivity, particularly in the development of brands (Coyle et al., 2012). The present study investigates the influential role of website interactivity on the development of brand knowledge and brand value for hotel websites, by deploying branding and information systems constructs, therefore proposing a multidisciplinary approach. According to the study results, five of the seven stated hypotheses were supported. Research results regarding H1, which states control is positively associated with brand awareness, were significant (path coefficient ¼ 0.41). Results related to H2, proposing that two-way communication is positively related with brand

Table 7 Results of the structural model. Standardized path Coefficients

p-values

Hypotheses testing

H1: Control

Parameter estimates structural paths (+)

AWA

0.41

0.001 ***

Supported

H2: Two-Way

(+)

AWA

ns

e

No-Supported

H3: Control

(+)

Image

0.24

0.001 ***

Supported

H4: Two-Way

(+)

Image

0.13

0.001 ***

Supported

H5: AWA

(+)

Image

0.60

0.001 ***

Supported

H6: AWA

(+)

Value

ns

e

No-Supported

(+)

Value

0.66

0.001 ***

Supported

H7: Image

*p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001, ns ¼ non-significant.


WEBSITE INTERACTIVITY

BRAND KNOWLEDGE

189

CONSUMER BRAND VALUE PERCEPTION

Brand Awareness

Control Brand Value Two-Way Brand Image

Fig. 2. Structural results. Theory-driven model of website interactivity as a branding tool for hotels. Note: Control ¼ User Control (System Interactivity); Two-Way ¼ Two-way communication (Social Interactivity).

awareness, were not statistically significant. This may imply that the perception of a reciprocal communication does not portray a strong enough argument for consumer to recall and remember the brand under different circumstances and therefore does not influence brand awareness for hotel websites. Third hypothesis, which proposed the positive relationship between control and brand image was significant (path coefficient ¼ 0.24). H4 proposed that there was a positive relationship between two-way communication and brand image, and it was supported (path coefficient ¼ 0.13). The fifth hypothesis, suggesting that brand awareness is related to brand image was supported (path coefficient ¼ 0.60). Research result related to H6, which stated the positive relationship between brand awareness and brand value was not statistically significant. Brand image is positively related to brand value (H7, path coefficient ¼ 0.66). This result may suggest that brand awareness is not an enough argument to create brand value. This imply that the critical mediating effect of brand image between the brand awareness-value relationship occurs when online users consider brand image as a prerequisite to consider hotel website as valuable.

5. Discussions and contributions Branding is an essential component and a powerful tool of an effective marketing strategy. It comprises communicating the brand values, the mission and vision of the company to both employees and customers. In the competitive lodging industry, setting the brand apart is crucial to establish a strong value proposition, thus, loyal customer base. This is applicable to both small independently owned hotels as well as international mega-chains. In online environments, it is a critical goal of marketers to position their hotels so that guests recall the brand the next time they need to reserve a room. By designing and developing interactive websites, a brand can build solid brand knowledge by means of brand awareness and brand image that makes the hotel brand to form positive consumer brand value perceptions. Our findings have supported partially initial projections that the dimensions of website interactivity namely, system interactivity

(i.e., user control) and social interactivity (i.e., two-way communication) influence brand awareness and brand image, being these constructs considered the antecedents of hotel brand elements in the online context. The second set of hypotheses that predicted that two-way communication (i.e., social interactivity), influences branding constructs (i.e., brand awareness and brand image) were partially supported. Contrary to expectations, the data did not support hypothesis 2 that suggests that two-way communication impacts brand awareness. In order to create positive brand awareness and image online, companies are advised to build websites where users feel in control. Having a sense of control over their surfing experience is critical for users. Further, they want to choose freely what they desired to see. Hotel website are recommended to provide effective ways to gather visitor's feedback, make users feel like the brand wants to listen to its visitors, encourages visitors to offer their feedback and offer various opportunities visitors to communicate. In line with our initial expectations, data supports the theorydriven model and the hypotheses concerning the relationships among the constructs. The dimensions of website interactivity, system interactivity represented by user control and social interactivity represented by two-way communication, positively impacted hotel brand awareness and brand image. It is possible to imply that travelers who perceive they communicate reciprocally with the brand and other users tend build positive, strong, and distinct perceptions of the brand. Travelers who perceive control and reciprocal communication when visiting the hotel's website, tend to perceive the hotel brand as positive. The results also suggest that user control exerts the strongest impact on brand awareness and brand image. User control illustrates the essential components for the hotel website design. Empowering users is a vital approach to achieve the goal of fostering brand image and brand awareness. To be more specific, the design of a hotel website should implement a structure into the system that provides user control and two-way interactions. Designers are advised to develop dynamic interfaces that allow users to feel empowered to accomplish what they want and also provide opportunities for two-way interactions.

190


Customization and personalization may result in a greater user control (Xie, 2003). Also, navigational tools that improve user control are important for hotel websites. These results let us imply that travelers who perceive control in the communication process and two-way communication among them when using a brand's website will recognize the brand and perceive the brand positively. The perceptions of interactivity help establishing a positive opinion of the brand which in turn will influence individuals to perceive the brand's website as valuable. 6. Theoretical and practical implications For theoretical and practical implications, this study help hoteliers and scholars to identify that when travelers feel they possess control and has the opportunity to communicate reciprocally with others tend to remember the company name under different circumstances and form positive perceptions and to behave more supportively towards the hotel brand. In summary, the results of this study offer scholars with perceptions on how the dimensions of website interactivity contribute to the building of brand awareness and brand image in the online context. The brad value is driven by a positive brand image. Brand awareness does not impact brand value. User control is an important design element for hotel e-commerce websites as it positively affects both brand awareness and brand image, whereas two-way communication does not affect brand awareness but it does affect brand image. In today's competitive marketplace, the majority of hotel brands distribute their inventory to all online channels, namely the brand site, the hotel's own web site, online travel agencies and other third-party travel sites. In such environment brand identification can become diluted through the indirect online distribution channels. Therefore, it is important to create interactive websites that establishes the brand knowledge in such environment. Today, much of the Internet is interactive as the users can press “share” and “like” buttons, and can add comments to news articles and even take part in Twitter based polls and surveys. However, most interactivity happens in online social networks or on forums. Hotel websites are mainly static where there is no opportunity for interaction. We show that interaction can help building stronger brands that in return positively influences brand value perceptions. Even though the present study presents significant theoretical and practical implications, some limitations must be addressed. The collected data used in the study has been gathered in the United States. Future studies are advised to test the proposed theory-driven framework considering different populations in diverse cultures (e.g., baby boomers and Generation Y, Eastern countries and Western countries). Future research could include other branding constructs, such as brand awareness, brand value and also behavioral constructs such as brand choice and buying intention in the model. Future research could also investigate specific applications of interactivity (e.g., real time chat, social media integration, user forums, and community pages) and measure their impact on branding elements. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.06.007. References Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York, N.Y: The Free Press. Aaker, D. A. (1992). The value of brand equity. Journal of Business Strategy, 13(4),

27e32. Ariely, D. (2000). Controlling the information flow: Effects on consumers' decision making and preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 233e248. Aryanto, V. D. W. (2008). Website interactivity. ICE-B 2008 (p. 464). Atchariyachanvanich, K., & Hitoshi, O. (2011). Trust on e-commerce website in Thailand: A case of online hotel reservation. In Applications and the internet (SAINT), 2011 IEEE/IPSJ 11th international symposium on (574e577). IEEE. Auger, P. (2005). The impact of interactivity and design sophistication on the performance of commercial websites for small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(2), 119e137. Bailey, R., & Ball, S. (2006). An exploration of the meanings of hotel brand equity. The Service Industries Journal, 26(1), 15e38. Belkhamza, Z. (2013). A study of the exposure of hotels information on the internet: A case study of sabah hotels of Malaysia. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 18(1). Beritelli, P., & Schegg, R. (2016). Maximizing online bookings through a multichannel-strategyeeffects of interdependencies and networks. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(1). Bian, J., & Liu, C. (2011). Relation between brand equity and purchase intention in hotel industry. International Journal of Services and Standards, 7(1), 18e34. Bilgihan, A., Kandampully, J., & Zhang, T. (2016). Towards a unified customer experience in online shopping environments: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 8(1), 102e119. Boczkowski, P. J., & Mitchelstein, E. (2012). How users take advantage of different forms of interactivity on online news sites: Clicking, e-mailing, and commenting. Human Communication Research, 38(1), 1e22. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's mechanical turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3e5. Campbell, D. E., & Wright, R. T. (2008). Shut-up I don't care: Understanding the role of relevance and interactivity on customer attitudes toward repetitive online advertising. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 9(1), 62. Cebi, S. (2013). Determining importance degrees of website design parameters based on interactions and types of websites. Decision Support Systems, 54(2), 1030e1043. Chang, J., Tekchandaney, J. R., Rangaswamy, A., & Simpson, T. W. (2003). Websites as personalities and playgrounds: Their effects on brand image, working paper 1e2002. Pennstate: eBusiness Research Center. Chen, Y. H., Hsu, I. C., & Lin, C. C. (2010). Website attributes that increase consumer purchase intention: A conjoint analysis. Journal of Business Research, 63(9), 1007e1014. Chiang, C. F., & Jang, S. S. (2007). The effects of perceived price and brand image on value and purchase intention: Leisure travelers' attitudes toward online hotel booking. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 15(3), 49e69. Chiu, C. M., Wang, E. T., Fang, Y. H., & Huang, H. Y. (2014). Understanding customers' repeat purchase intentions in B2C e-commerce: The roles of utilitarian value, hedonic value and perceived risk. Information Systems Journal, 24(1), 85e114. Coyle, J. R., Smith, T., & Platt, G. (2012). “I'm here to help” how companies' microblog responses to consumer problems influence brand perceptions. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 6(1), 27e41. Coyle, J. R., & Thorson, E. (2001). The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. Journal of Advertising, 30(3), 65e77. Crump, M. J., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating amazon's mechanical turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PloS One, 8(3), e57410. Davis, D. F., Golicic, S. L., & Marquardt, A. J. (2008). Branding a B2B service: Does a brand differentiate a logistics service provider? Industrial Marketing Management, 37(2), 218e227. Delgado-Ballester, E., & Fernandez Sabiote, E. (2015). Brand experimental value versus brand functional value: Which matters more for the brand? European Journal of Marketing, 49(11/12), 1857e1879. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263e282. Esch, F. R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B. H., & Geus, P. (2006). Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(2), 98e105. Faircloth, J. B., Capella, L. M., & Alford, B. L. (2001). The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(3), 61e75. Fang, Y., Qureshi, I., Sun, H., McCole, P., Ramsey, E., & Lim, K. H. (2014). Trust, satisfaction, and online repurchase intention: The moderating role of perceived effectiveness of e-commerce institutional mechanisms. Mis Quarterly, 38(2), 407e427. Faqih, K. M. (2016). An empirical analysis of factors predicting the behavioral intention to adopt Internet shopping technology among non-shoppers in a developing country context: Does gender matter? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 140e164. Fiore, A. M., & Jin, H. J. (2003). Influence of image interactivity on approach responses towards an online retailer. Internet Research, 13(1), 38e48. Flanagin, A. J., Metzger, M. J., Pure, R., Markov, A., & Hartsell, E. (2014). Mitigating risk in ecommerce transactions: Perceptions of information credibility and the role of user-generated ratings in product quality and purchase intention. Electronic Commerce Research, 14(1), 1e23. Forman, C., Goldfarb, A., & Greenstein, S. (2012a). The internet and local wages: A

A.A. Barreda et al. / Tourism Management 57 (2016) 180e192 puzzle. American Economic Review, 102(1), 556. Forman, C., Goldfarb, A., & Greenstein, S. (2012b). The internet and local wages: A puzzle. The American Economic Review, 102(1), 556e575. Forman, C., & Zeebroeck, N. V. (2012). From wires to partners: How the internet has fostered R&D collaborations within firms. Management science, 58(8), 1549e1568. Gallos, L. K., Rybski, D., Liljeros, F., Havlin, S., & Makse, H. A. (2012). How people interact in evolving online affiliation networks. Physical Review X, 2(3), 031014. Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 70e87. Gliem, R. R., & Gliem, J. A. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In Midwest research-topractice conference in adult, continuing, and community education. Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 213e224. Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., & Palaniswami, M. (2013). Internet of things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(7), 1645e1660. Guillory, J. E., & Sundar, S. S. (2014). How does web site interactivity affect our perceptions of an organization? Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(1), 44e61. Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47e57. Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, A. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis with readings (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hartono, E., Holsapple, C. W., Kim, K. Y., Na, K. S., & Simpson, J. T. (2014). Measuring perceived security in B2C electronic commerce website usage: A respecification and validation. Decision Support Systems, 62, 11e21. Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2003). The marketing advantages of strong brands. The Journal of Brand Management, 10(6), 421e445. Holden, S. J. (1993). Understanding brand Awareness: Let me give You a C (I) ue! Advances In Consumer Research, 20(1). Hsu, C. H., Oh, H., & Assaf, A. G. (2012). A customer-based brand equity model for upscale hotels. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 81e93. Huang, C. (2010). Internet use and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(3), 241e249. € llü, E. (2012). How brand awareness relates to market outcome, Huang, R., & Sarigo brand equity, and the marketing mix. Journal of Business Research, 65(1), 92e99. Hwang, J., & Kandampully, J. (2012). The role of emotional aspects in younger consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21(2), 98e108. Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression (No. 114). Sage. Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2007). The effects of presentation formats and task complexity on online consumers' product understanding. Mis Quarterly, 475e500. Jiang, Z., Chan, J., Tan, B. C., & Chua, W. S. (2010). Effects of Interactivity on website involvement and purchase intention. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(1), 34. Jiang, H., Ren, X., & Liu, K. (2012). The study on e-commerce application in regional tourism. In System science, engineering design and manufacturing informatization (ICSEM), 2012 3rd international conference on (1, 138e141). IEEE. Jih, W. J., Lee, S. F., & Tsai, Y. C. (2010). Effects of website interactivity on e-loyalty: A social exchange perspective. International Journal of E-Business Research (IJEBR), 6(4), 1e12. Kayaman, R., & Arasli, H. (2007). Customer based brand equity: Evidence from the hotel industry. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 17(1), 92e109. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. The Journal of Marketing, 1e22. Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of consumer research, 29(4), 595e600. Keng, C. J., & Lin, H. Y. (2006). Impact of telepresence levels on internet advertising effects. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(1), 82e94. Kim, M. J., Chung, N., & Lee, C. K. (2011). The effect of perceived trust on electronic commerce: Shopping online for tourism products and services in South Korea. Tourism Management, 32(2), 256e265. Kim, H. B., Gon Kim, W., & An, J. A. (2003). The effect of consumer-based brand equity on firms' financial performance. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(4), 335e351. Kim, W. G., Jin-Sun, B., & Kim, H. J. (2008). Multidimensional customer-based brand equity and its consequences in midpriced hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 32(2), 235e254. Kim, W. G., & Kim, H. B. (2004). Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 115e131. Kim, W. G., Rachjaibun, N., Han, J. S., & Lee, G. (2011). The influence of hotel website factors on e-loyalty in a B2C context. Tourism Economics, 17(5), 1103e1127. King, & Jainchill. (2012). Hotel industry divided over value of flash sites. Retrieved on February 8th, 2014 from http://www.travelweekly.com/travel-news/onlinetravel/flash-reservations/. Ku, E. C., & Chen, C. D. (2015). Cultivating travellers' revisit intention to e-tourism service: The moderating effect of website interactivity. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(5), 465e478. Kwun, D. J. W., & Oh, H. (2007). Consumers' evaluation of brand portfolios. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(1), 81e97.

191

Lerman, D., & Garbarino, E. (2002). Recall and recognition of brand names: A comparison of word and nonword name types. Psychology & Marketing, 19(7e8), 621e639. Leung, X. Y., Xue, L., & Bai, B. (2015). Internet marketing research in hospitality and tourism: A review and journal preferences. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(7), 1556e1572. Liu, C. (2012). The impact of interactivity and vividness of experiential brand websites on attitudes. Lowry, P. B., Spaulding, T., Wells, T., Moody, G., Moffit, K., & Madariaga, S. (2006). A theoretical model and empirical results linking website interactivity and usability satisfaction. In System sciences, 2006. HICSS'06. Proceedings of the 39th annual Hawaii international conference on (6), 123e123. Macdonald, E. K., & Sharp, B. M. (2000). Brand awareness effects on consumer decision making for a common, repeat purchase product: A replication. Journal of business research, 48(1), 5e15. Madhavaram, S., Badrinarayanan, V., & McDonald, R. E. (2005). Integrated marketing communication (IMC) and brand identity as critical components of brand equity strategy: A conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Advertising, 34(4), 69e80. Maio, M. M. (2001). Evaluation of brand equity measures: Further empirical results. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(1), 38e51. Mar Alonso-Almeida, M. del, & Bremser, K. (2013). Strategic responses of the Spanish hospitality sector to the financial crisis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 141e148. Martins, C., Oliveira, T., & Popovi c, A. (2014). Understanding the internet banking adoption: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application. International Journal of Information Management, 34(1), 1e13. Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on amazon's mechanical turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1e23. Mathew, P. M., & Mishra, S. (2014). Online retailing in India: Linking internet usage, perceived risks, website attributes and past online purchase behaviour. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 65(4), 1e17. Mohd Yasin, N., Nasser Noor, M., & Mohamad, O. (2007). Does image of country-oforigin matter to brand equity? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(1), 38e48. Moss, G. A., Wulf, C., & Mullen, H. (2013). Internet marketing to 50þ generations in the Uk and France. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 25(1), 45e58. Müller, B., & Chandon, J. L. (2004). The impact of a world wide web site visit on brand image in the motor vehicle and mobile telephone industries. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10(2), 153e165. Munoz, E. (2014). Column: 2014: What comes next for the hotel industry?. Retrieved on February 5th, 2014 from http://www.aahoalodging.biz/trends-nissues/ Column%3Aþ2014%3AþWhatþComesþNextþforþtheþHotelþIndustry%3F/ 297. Nah, F. F. H., Eschenbrenner, B., & DeWester, D. (2011). Enhancing brand equity through flow and telepresence: A comparison of 2D and 3D virtual worlds. MIs Quarterly, 35(3), 731e747. Neelotpaul, B. (2011). A study on interactivity and online branding. Advances in Management. Nikitina, N., Rudolph, S., & Glimm, B. (2012). On the world wide web. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 12(13), 118e130. Oh, H., & Hsu, C. H. (2014). Assessing equivalence of hotel brand equity measures in cross-cultural contexts. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 156e166. € üt, H., & Onur Tas¸, B. K. (2012). The influence of internet customer reviews on the Og online sales and prices in hotel industry. The Service Industries Journal, 32(2), 197e214. Palla, P., Tsiotsou, R. H., & Zotos, Y. T. (2013). Is website interactivity always beneficial? an elaboration likelihood model approach. Advances in Advertising Research, 4, 131e145. Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2005). Consumer-based brand equity: Improving the measurement-empirical evidence. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(3), 143e154. Peter, J. Paul, & Olson, Jerry C. (2001). Consumer behavior. Chicago: Irwin. Polites, G. L., Williams, C. K., Karahanna, E., & Seligman, L. (2012). A theoretical framework for consumer e-satisfaction and site stickiness: An evaluation in the context of online hotel reservations. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 22(1), 1e37. Rios, R. E., & Riquelme, H. E. (2010). Sources of brand equity for online companies. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 4(3), 214e240. Salciuviene, L., Keeling, K., & Tiasuwan, P. (2013). Interactive websites: The effects of social presence on customer decisions in the online luxury goods sector. European Marketing Academy. Schlosser, A. (2000). Harnessing the power of interactivity: Implications for consumer behavior in online environments. Advances in Consumer Research, 27(27), 79e79. Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (2nd.ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shih, B. Y., Chen, C. Y., & Chen, Z. S. (2013). An empirical study of an internet marketing strategy for search engine optimization. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 23(6), 528e540. Simmons, G., Thomas, B., & Truong, Y. (2010). Managing i-branding to create brand equity. European Journal of Marketing, 44(9/10), 1260e1285. So, K. K. F., & King, C. (2010). When experience matters: Building and measuring hotel brand equity: The customers' perspective. International Journal of

192


Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(5), 589e608. Stevenson, J. S., Bruner, G. C., & Kumar, A. (2000). Webpage background and viewer attitudes. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(1e2), 29e34. Taylor, D. G., & Strutton, D. (2010). Has e-marketing come of age? Modeling historical influences on post-adoption era internet consumer behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 63(9), 950e956. The Interactive Media in Retail Group (IMRG). (2013). Retrieved on february 5th, 2014 from. http://www.Internetretailer.com/2012/06/14/global-e-commerce-saleswill-top-125-trillion-2013. Toh, R. S., DeKay, C. F., & Raven, P. (2011). Travel planning: Searching for and booking hotels on the internet. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 52(4), 388e398. U.S. Commerce Department. (2013). Forrester research, Internet retailer, ComScore, inc. Retrieved on February 5th, 2014, from http://www.statisticbrain.com/totalonline-sales/. Valette-Florence, P., Guizani, H., & Merunka, D. (2011). The impact of brand personality and sales promotions on brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 24e28. Vernuccio, M., Barbarossa, C., Giraldi, A., & Ceccotti, F. (2012). Determinants of ebrand attitude: A structural modeling approach. The Journal of Brand Management, 19(6), 500e512. Voorveld, H. A., Van Noort, G., & Duijn, M. (2013). Building brands with interactivity: The role of prior brand usage in the relation between perceived website interactivity and brand responses. Journal of Brand Management, 20(7), 608e622. Wang, H., Meng, Y., & Wang, W. (2013). The role of perceived interactivity in virtual communities: Building trust and increasing stickiness. Connection Science, 25(1), 55e73. Wen, I. (2012). An empirical study of an online travel purchase intention model. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29(1), 18e39. Wu, H. C., Liao, L. C. C., & Tsai, T. F. (2012, May). A study of relationships among consumer cognition of spa hotel brand, service quality, experience, and repurchase intention. In Innovation management and technology research (ICIMTR), 2012 international conference on (148e151). IEEE. Xiang, Z., Magnini, V. P., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2015). Information technology and consumer behavior in travel and tourism: Insights from travel planning using the internet. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 244e249. Xiao, Q., O'Neill, J. W., & Mattila, A. S. (2012). The role of hotel owners: The influence of corporate strategies on hotel performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(1), 122e139. Xie, H. (2003). Supporting ease-of-use and user control: Desired features and structure of web-based online IR systems. Information Processing and Management, 39(6), 899e922. Xie, L., & Chen, C. C. (2014). Hotel loyalty programs: How valuable is valuable enough? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(1), 107e129. Xu, B. J., & Chan, A. (2010). A conceptual framework of hotel experience and customer-based brand equity: Some research questions and implications. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(2), 174e193. Yang, Y. H., & Huang, E. (2011). Interactivity and social media marketing: Case study of Taiwan companies. In E-Business and e-government (ICEE), 2011 international conference on (1e3). IEEE. Yang, L. M., Li, D. H., & Yang, X. Z. (2013, November). Exploration of factors influencing the customer satisfaction of e-commerce: A study based on website features. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 389, 979e984. Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1e14. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195e211. Yoo, W. S., Lee, Y., & Park, J. (2010). The role of interactivity in e-tailing: Creating value and increasing satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17(2), 89e96. Yu, C. C., Lin, P. J., & Chen, C. S. (2013). How brand image, country of origin, and selfcongruity influence internet users' purchase intention. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 41(4), 599e611.

Dr. Albert Barreda is an assistant professor at Missouri State University. He completed his Ph.D. at Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida. He earned his Master degree in Hospitality and Tourism Management from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. His Bachelor of Science in Communication Sciences was from the San Agustin State University, Arequipa, Peru. His research focuses on vacation ownership, strategic intuition, branding structure, hospitality bankruptcy, finance, and hotel management.

Dr. Anil Bilgihan is an Assistant Professor in the College of Business at the Florida Atlantic University, USA. He earned his Ph.D. from University of Central Florida. He earned his Master of Science degree from the University of Delaware in hospitality information management. His main fields of research are e-commerce and hospitality information systems. Anil has widely published in leading journals, including Information & Management, Tourism Management, Computers in Human Behavior, and Electronic Commerce Research and Applications.

Dr. Khaldoon Nusair is an Associate Professor and Head of Marketing Department in the College of Economics & Political Science at Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat. Prior to joining Sultan Qaboos University, Dr. Nusair was an Associate Professor at University of Central Florida, Orlando. He earned his Ph.D. in Hospitality Management with Consumer Behavior, E-commerce, & Research Methodology concentrations from The Ohio State University, in Columbus, OH. He holds two Master of Science degrees both from The State University of New York at Stony Brook; the first in Technological Systems Management and the second in Management Information Systems. Dr. Nusair's research interests include Consumer Behavior & E-commerce. He is the author of one book and more than 80 refereed papers in leading academic journals and proceedings of international conferences. He has consulting experience in the areas of Information Systems, Marketing & E-commerce.

Dr. Fevzi Okumus is a Professor in the Hospitality Services Department with the Rosen College of Hospitality Management. He received his Ph.D. in Strategic Hotel Management in 2000 from Oxford Brookes University, UK. His research focuses on strategy implementation, change management, competitive advantage, knowledge management, crisis management, cross-cultural management, destination marketing, information technology and developing countries. He has over 67 refereed journal articles and over 160 academic publications (refereed journal articles, book chapters, conference presentations, etc.). He is the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (IJCHM). He also serves on the editorial boards of 14 international journals. He is a frequent speaker at international conferences.