Tourism Management 51 (2015) 210e222

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

A model of tourism destination brand equity: The case of wine

tourism destinations in Spain

mez a, b, Carmen Lopez c, Arturo Molina a, b, *
Mar Go

rtir s/n, 45071 Toledo, Spain
Department of Marketing, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Cobertizo San Pedro Ma

noma de Chile, Santiago, Chile
Universidad Auto
c
Plymouth Business School, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK
a

h i g h l i g h t s

Gap between the internal approach and the external approach.

Managers' perceptions are more favorable than visitors'.

The effect of the two determinants varies across stakeholder groups.

More positive assessment for Rioja than for the other four DOs.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 30 June 2014
Accepted 12 May 2015
Available online 7 June 2015

The extant tourism literature contains few studies that have examined brand equity and its determining
factors in the wine tourism research area. This paper aims to address this gap in the existing literature by
proposing a model for the inuence of the designation of origin (DO) brand image and the destination
image on the brand equity of wine tourism destinations and examining these effects on two stakeholder
groups, winery managers and winery visitors. Using a survey questionnaire that was completed by 219
managers and 598 visitors and a partial least squares-based multi-group analysis, the results demonstrate that the effects of the two inuential factors varied between the stakeholder groups. The research
also conrmed that overall, managers evaluate wine tourism destination brand equity, DO brand image
and destination image more positively than visitors do.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Wine tourism
Brand equity
Destination image
Designation of origin
Partial least squares regression
Multi-group analysis

1. Introduction
Previous research has acknowledged the added value that
brands provide to tourism destinations and thus the importance of
building successful destination brands and understanding and
managing the factors that determine brand equity for tourism
destinations (Boo, Busser, & Baloglu, 2009; Konecnik & Gartner,
2007). Wineries are one of the emerging tourism destinations.
Wine tourism, which is also known as enotourism or oenotourism,
is dened as visitation to vineyards, wineries, wine festivals and
wine shows for which grape wine tasting and/or experiencing the

* Corresponding author. Department of Marketing, University of Castilla-La

rtir s/n, 45071 Toledo, Spain. Tel.: 34 925 268
Mancha, Cobertizo San Pedro Ma
800x5149; fax: 34 902 204 130.

mez), carmen.lopez@
E-mail addresses: mariamar.gomez@uclm.es (M. Go
plymouth.ac.uk (C. Lopez), arturo.molina@uclm.es (A. Molina).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.05.019
0261-5177/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

attributes of a grape wine region are the prime motivating factors

for visitors (Hall & Macionis, 1998, p. 267). Wine tourism brings
considerable benets for wineries (Dodd, 1995), improves the
economic wellbeing of the population that lives in the area (Ashton,
2014; Williams, 2001), improves the economic development of the
region and the country, and contributes to the tourism industry by
offering alternative leisure activities.
Within the wine tourism destination literature, a number of
researchers have analyzed the critical factors for success in wine
tourism (Getz & Brown, 2006; Howley & van Westering, 2008),
wine routes (Bruwer, 2003), collaborations between wineries and
local communities (Sheridan, Alonso, & Scherrer, 2009), wine festivals (Veres, Clark, & Golbourne, 2008), wine tasting rooms
(Alonso, Sheridan, & Scherrer, 2008), and wine seasonality (Getz,
Dowling, Carlsen, & Anderson, 1999), among other topics. However, only a limited number of studies have investigated the importance of branding and brand equity for wine tourism destinations
and the determinants of wine tourism destination brand equity


mez et al. / Tourism Management 51 (2015) 210e222

M. Go

(e.g., Lockshin & Spawton, 2001; Nowak & Washburn, 2002). The
lack of a signicant body of literature regarding this topic is
remarkable because local, regional, and national institutions and
governments are increasingly adopting a proactive approach in
branding their destinations to differentiate them from competitors
and to increase the number of tourists, investments, and exports.
Managing and monitoring the branding of wine tourism destinations is critical for attracting tourists. The multiplicity of stakeholders involved in the branding process (e.g., employees, media,
entrepreneurs, governments, and visitors) calls for research that,
unlike previous studies, adopts a broader perspective and incorporates both internal and external perspectives. Therefore, we
addressed this gap by comparing winery managers' and winery
visitors' approaches to wine tourism destination brand equity and
investigating the impact that the designation of origin (DO) brand
image and the destination image have on wine tourism destination
brand equity as perceived by the two groups.
The majority of the academic studies that have examined wine
tourism destinations have focused on New World countries,
namely, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, and the
United States of America (USA) (Alonso et al., 2008; Marzo-Navarro
& Pedraja-Iglesias, 2009; Scherrer, Alonso, & Sheridan, 2009). This
study aims to provide insights regarding wine tourism by analyzing
wine tourism in Spain, which is the largest wine producer in the
world and one of the top ve tourism destinations.
From both the theoretical and managerial points of view, it is
important to understand wine tourism destination brand equity
and investigate how the DO brand image and destination image
shape the brand equity of wine tourism destinations; moreover,
internal and external perspectives should be compared.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: rst, we
review the previous research regarding destination brands, wine
tourism destination brand equity, and destination image within the
tourism literature; then, we develop the research hypotheses and
the theoretical framework. Next, the survey questionnaire for the
data collection and the data analysis methods are described, followed by a presentation of the ndings. The last section discusses
the results and concludes with the theoretical and managerial
implications and the limitations and avenues for future research.
2. Theoretical background and research hypotheses
2.1. Destination brand, DO brand, and wine tourism destination
brand
In recent years, there has been a shift in the focus from product
brands to corporate brands (Balmer, 1995) and, more recently, towards nation brands (Dinnie, 2008) and destination brands (Blain,
Levy, & Ritchie, 2005). In the proposed study, three levels of brand
analysis must be distinguished, namely the destination brand, the
DO brand, and the wine tourism destination brand.
Conceptualization of a destination as a brand is widely accepted
within the tourism literature (e.g., Cai, 2002; Konecnik & Gartner,
2007; Pike, Bianchi, Kerr, & Patti, 2010). Two main perspectives
regarding conceptualizing a destination brand, which draw their
inspiration from marketing, can be identied. The rst perspective
classies the denitions of destination brands into two categories.
The rst is those that adopt the company's perspective and apply
one of the most-cited brand denitions from the American Marketing Academy to the tourism research area; under this type of
denition, a destination brand is A name, symbol, logo, word mark
or other graphic that both identies and differentiates the place
(Ritchie & Ritchie, 1998, p. 103); Denitions in the second category
adopt the consumer's perspective and use the term destination
image to analyze destination brands from the receiver's

211

perspective (e.g., Cai, 2002; Hankinson, 2004; Prebensen, 2007).

The second perspective distinguishes the authors who consider the
destination brand as an addition to the destination product, in
which identication and differentiation are the main purposes of
the destination brand (Sartori, Mottironi, & Corigliano, 2012), from
the researchers who emphasize the experiences (Buhalis, 2000)
and acknowledge the importance of the emotional component of
the destination brand and the emotional connection between the
visitor and the destination beyond the functional values of the
brand (Quintal, Phau, & Polczynski, 2014). Previous studies have
recognized the complexity of destination branding compared with
product branding and corporate branding (Quintal et al., 2014)
because of the involvement of many stakeholders (Morgan,
Pritchard, & Piggott, 2002); a large number of products, services,
and resources; and even different economic sectors (Buhalis, 2000;
Murphy, Pritchard, & Smith, 2000).
Following the above conceptualizations and Keller's (1993)
denition of a branded product (A branded product may be a
physical good, a service, a store, a person, place, organization or
idea (Keller, 1993, p. 5)), we could argue that a branded product
could be a DO or a wine tourism destination, and brands are
considered to be a key asset for DOs and wineries. Brands can also
be a powerful instrument to identify and differentiate a DO or wine
tourism destination from its competitors and develop and reinforce
the emotional link with consumers.
2.2. Wine tourism destination brand equity
Successful brands are important assets that create added value
for companies and/or consumers (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 2003). The
added value endowed by a brand is known as brand equity
(Farquhar, 1994). Marketing authors such as Aaker (1991) and Keller
(1993) conceptualize brand equity via a consumer-based perspective and include perceptual (images and associations) and/or
behavioral dimensions in their conceptualizations of brand equity.
Aaker (1991, p. 15) denes brand equity as a set of assets and
liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or
subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a rm
and/or to that rm's customers. He divides these assets and liabilities into the following ve categories: brand awareness,
perceived quality, brand associations, brand loyalty, and other
proprietary brand assets. The rst three are considered to be
perceptual components of brand equity, and brand loyalty is classied as a behavioral component (Kim, Han, Holland, & Byon,
2009). Keller (1993) developed the Customer-Based Brand Equity
(CBBE) model and described it as the differential effect of brand
knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand
(Keller, 1993, p. 2). Therefore, a brand is said to have a positive
(negative) customer-based brand equity when consumers react
more (less) favorably to an element of the marketing mix for the
brand than they do to the same marketing mix element when it is
attributed to a ctitiously named or unnamed version of the
product or service (Keller, 1993, p. 8). In his model, two dimensions
of brand equity can be identied, namely, brand awareness and
brand image. Aaker's (1991) and Keller's (1993) dimensions of
brand equity are widely applied within the tourism destination
research eld. For example, Boo et al. (2009) distinguished ve
components of destination brand equity (destination brand
awareness, destination brand image, destination brand quality,
destination brand value, and destination brand loyalty), and
Konecnik and Gartner (2007) incorporated four elements of brand
equity for a destination (destination awareness, destination image,
destination quality, and destination loyalty).
Nowak, Thach, and Olsen (2006) extended Farquhar's (1994)
denition of brand equity by applying it at the winery level. They

212

mez et al. / Tourism Management 51 (2015) 210e222

M. Go

described brand equity for a winery as the incremental value that

the brand adds to the winery, which can result in consumers' brand
loyalty, willingness to pay a premium price, and other positive
outcomes. Thus, winery brand equity is an asset that is developed
over time. Furthermore, Lockshin and Spawton (2001) and Orth,
Wolf, and Dodd (2005) adopted Aaker's (1991) and Keller's (1993)
dimensions of brand equity and distinguished the following ve
dimensions within the wine brand equity construct: brand
awareness, brand loyalty, brand image/brand associations,
perceived quality, and other proprietary brand assets.
Wine tourism destination brand awareness refers to the consumer's ability to recall and recognize a wine destination (Aaker,
1991) and the strength of that destination in the consumer's mind
(Aaker, 1996). Aaker (1991) distinguished four levels of awareness,
namely, dominance (the only brand retrieved by a large percentage
of consumers), top of mind (the brand that rst comes to the consumer's mind (Riezebos, 2003)), recall (the consumer is able to recall
the brand when they think of a product category (Keller, 2003)), and
recognition (the consumer's ability to identify a brand). Awareness
of a wine tourism destination is key to encourage consumers to visit
the destination and thus increase their familiarity with and fondness for the brand (Lockshin & Spawton, 2001).
Conceptualizations of brand loyalty can be classied into the
following three groups: denitions that consider brand loyalty as
an attitude and emphasize brand commitment (e.g., Jarvis &
Wilcox, 1976), denitions of brand loyalty at the behavioral level
that focus on repeat purchasing behavior (e.g., Ehrenberg &
Goodhardt, 2000), and denitions that incorporate attitudinal
and behavioral components (e.g., Russell-Bennett, McCollKennedy, & Coote, 2007). Consistent with the third group of
studies, wine tourism destination brand loyalty has been dened as
the consumers' preference for the destination, intention to repeat
the visit, and likelihood of recommending the destination
(Konecnik & Gartner, 2007; Pike, 2007). Visiting wineries and
winery tasting room experiences are known to be determinants of
consumers' brand loyalty (Bruwer, Coode, Saliba, & Herbst, 2013;
Dodd, 1995; Mitchell & Hall, 2004).
Consistent with Aaker's (1996), Riezebos's (2003) and Kapferer's
(2004) descriptions of brand image, a receiver's focus is adopted
when exploring this concept in the paper. Wine tourism destination brand image refers to the cognitive and affective associations
that consumers link to the destination (Keller, 1993). Strong,
favorable, and unique destination associations are key for the
development of wine tourism (Getz et al., 1999).
The application of perceived quality for wineries involves
considering the consumer's perception of the overall service quality
(Aaker, 1991) because visitors' perceptions of the service quality at
the cellar door are essential for developing brand equity in wine
tourism destinations (O'Neill & Charters, 2000). The perceived
quality of a tourist destination is closely related and inuences the
perceived value of that destination (Oh, 2000; Teas & Laczniak,
2004). As Boo et al. (2009) and Tsai (2005) acknowledge,
methods of conceptualization and operationalization of a destination brand's value typically adopt a price-based approach, i.e., they
consider the monetary value that the brand provides (Aaker, 1996).
Finally, other proprietary wine destination brand assets, such as
historic buildings, unique processes, channel management
methods, and customer relationship management, can determine
brand equity (Lockshin & Spawton, 2001).
In this study, considering the above dimensions and adopting
Yoo and Donthu's (2001) understanding of brand equity, we
distinguished the following three dimensions within the wine
tourism destination brand equity construct: wine tourism destination brand awareness, wine tourism destination brand loyalty,
and wine tourism destination perceived value.

In addition to the three previous dimensions (demand-side elements), the denition of wine tourism destination brand equity
can be broadened to incorporate supply-side elements, such as
wine festivals (Veres et al., 2008), wine restaurants, wine tasting
rooms (Alonso et al., 2008), wine museums, vinotherapy, and
geological conditions (Getz et al., 1999).
2.3. Destination image and DO image
Although there is no agreed denition of brand image, Dobni
and Zinkhan's (1990) study identied the following commonalities in the conceptualization of this construct: it is dened at the
consumer level, and it refers to perceptions created through consumer interpretation. In this study, we adopt Keller's (1993, p. 3)
view of brand image as perceptions about a brand as reected by
the brand associations held in consumer memory and Bullmore's
(1984), Poiesz's (1989), and Martnez and Pina's (2009) conceptualization of brand image as composed of a cognitive and affective
components.
Cai (2002) extended Keller's (1993) denition of brand image by
applying it at the destination level. He viewed destination image as
perceptions about the place as reected by the associations held in
tourist memory (Cai, 2002, p. 723). A review of the denitions of
destination image revealed three groups. The rst group of studies
conceptualizes the destination image at the cognitive level (beliefs).
For example, Crompton (1979) indicated that the destination image
involved a set of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that a visitor has
about a tourist destination. Similarly, Kotler, Haider, and Rein (1993,
p. 141) considered the image of a destination as the sum of beliefs,
ideas and impressions that people have of a place. A number of
researchers have broadened this perspective by including cognitive
and affective (feelings) components. For example, Lawson and
Baud-Bovy (1977) dened a destination image as the expression
of all knowledge, impressions, prejudices, and emotional thoughts
an individual or group has of a particular object or place. This view
has been supported by an increasing number of studies (e.g.,
Baloglu & McCleary, 1999a; Beerli & Martn, 2004; Bosnjak, 2010;
San Martn & Rodrguez, 2008; Walmsley & Young, 1998). Finally,
a third group of authors have presented the destination image as
formed by three distinctly different but hierarchically interrelated
components: cognitive, affective and conative (Gartner, 1993, p.
193). Similar to the second group of scholars, this study conceptualizes the destination image as a two-component construct by
distinguishing cognitive and affective structures.
Destination brand image plays an important role in the success
of tourism destinations because it inuences consumer behavior

, Sa

nchez, & S

(Bigne
anchez, 2001) by stimulating visits to tourism
areas (Beerli & Martn, 2004; Chen & Tsai, 2007); destinations with
a favorable brand image are more likely to be visited (Echtner &
Ritchie, 1991).
Following our conceptualization of destination image, we could
argue that the DO image is a two-component construct that comprises beliefs and affect.
2.4. DO brand image and destination image as determinants of
wine tourism destination brand equity
Brand associations (i.e., brand image) can be developed when a
brand (e.g., destination brand) becomes linked to another entity
(e.g., DO or wine tourism destination) in the consumer's mind
(Keller, 1993) and associations that are meaningful to consumers
are transferred from the brand to the entity (Riezebos, 2003).
Furthermore, building on categorization theory (Rosch, Simpson, &
Miller, 1976), destinations, DOs, and wine tourism destinations can
be organized into a hierarchical structure in which the information


mez et al. / Tourism Management 51 (2015) 210e222

M. Go

in the superordinate category (e.g., destination) can be carried over

to the subordinate categories (e.g., DO or wine tourism destination).
The wine tourism destination literature acknowledges the DO as
a factor that shapes the brand equity of a wine tourism destination

mez & Molina, 2012; Nowak
(e.g., Famularo, Bruwer, & Li, 2010; Go
et al., 2006). For example, Pitta and Katsanis (1995) and Lockshin
and Spawton (2001) concluded that a positive brand increases
the value of the brand. Thus, if consumers hold a favorable image of
the DO, they are more likely to visit the winery and enhance the
value of the wine tourism destination brand (Famularo et al., 2010).
This relationship has also been analyzed from a company's
perspective by examining the brand equity of wine tourism destinations as a key asset that creates value for a company and is
affected by the brand image (Getz et al., 1999). The strong and
positive image of the DO Rioja has attracted an increasing number
of tourists to the Rioja wine region wineries, therefore increasing
the brand value of this wine tourism destination.
The natural and cultural resources, infrastructure, socioeconomic environment, climate, atmosphere, social conditions,
gastronomy, and culture of a destination determine the assessment
of a wine destination (Carlsen, 2004; Scherrer et al., 2009; Tasci &
Kozak, 2006; Williams, 2001). Getz and Brown (2006) found that
destinations with tourist routes and tourist events contribute to the
brand success of wine tourism destinations. The relevance of the
link between destination brand image and brand equity has been
highlighted by Cai (2002) and Saraniemi (2011); the latter developed a model for the inuence of the destination brand image on
brand equity. The image of the Rioja region as a tourist destination
has a positive impact on the brand value of the wine tourism destinations within the region.
Finally, previous studies have acknowledged the relationship
between destination image and DO brand image (e.g., Cai, 2002;

mez & Molina, 2012). For example, Johnson and Bruwer (2007)
Go
analyzed the effect of the overall destination image on the perceptions of the wines from the DO. The effect can be observed as a
bidirectional relationship because the consumers' image of a brand
determines the perceptions of the region in which the produce is
produced (Keller, 1993). Focusing on the wine tourism research
area, Cawley (1992) highlighted the relevance of the DO brand for
the destination image. This two-way relationship can be illustrated
^le

e) Bordeaux and
by using the AOC (Appellation dOrigine Contro
the city of Bordeaux as an example.
2.5. Research hypotheses. Winery managers and winery visitors: a
comparative approach of wine tourism destination brand equity
A number of stakeholders (e.g., local residents, media, opinion
leaders, governments, and entrepreneurs) are relevant in the process of branding tourism destinations (Ashton, 2014; Gilmore,
2002). Winery managers and winery visitors play key roles in the
process (Hankinson, 2004) and therefore in the success of destination branding (Morgan, Pritchard, & Piggott, 2003). The business
management literature (Freeman, 1984; Stoney & Winstanley,
2001) has provided the theoretical bases to justify their inclusion
and involvement in the destination branding process because of
their power as stakeholders and thus their ability to impact wineries (Byrd & Gustke, 2011).
Building wine tourism destination brand equity is determined
by the target group (Lockshin & Spawton, 2001); a comparison of
the tourists' evaluation of brand equity with that of the internal
stakeholders is key for the development of successful branding
strategies (Sartori et al., 2012). Furthermore, extending Brown,
Havitz, and Getz's (2006) classication of the viewpoints of an
organization beyond the area of corporate branding and into the
domain of destination branding, the internal image (perceptions

213

held by insiders) of a DO and a destination may not match the

external image (perceptions held by external audiences) of those
two entities. Thus, there may be a gap between the internal and
the external images, as Zouni and Kouremenos (2008)
demonstrated.
Previous studies regarding wine tourism have adopted either
the winery visitors' perspective (Charters & Ali-Knight, 2000, 2002)

mez & Molina, 2012)
or the winery managers' perspective (Go
based on the relevance of their business decisions (Carmichael,
2005). Only a limited number of studies (e.g., Charters & O'Neill,
2001; O'Neill & Charters, 2000; O'Neill, Palmer, & Charters, 2002)
have combined both perspectives in their studies by applying them
to the concept of the quality of the service at the cellar door but not
to the wine tourism destination brand equity construct.
Considering the above discussion, the following hypotheses are
suggested (see Fig. 1):
H1. Winery managers and winery visitors differ in terms of the
positive relationship between DO brand image and wine
tourism destination brand equity.
H2. Winery managers and winery visitors differ in terms of the
positive relationship between destination image and wine
tourism destination brand equity.
H3. Winery managers and winery visitors differ in terms of the
positive relationship between destination image and DO brand
image.
3. Research methodology
3.1. Data collection and sample
We used a survey questionnaire for data collection. The hypotheses were tested using winery managers and winery visitors in
Spain (in the study, the term visitor refers to both overnight
visitors/tourists and same-day visitors/excursionists). Winery
managers and visitors have different positions relative to the wine
tourism destination brand equity, namely, the internal perspective
and external perspective, respectively. Spain was a suitable choice
for this study because it is the world's largest producer of wine and
the second-most-visited country in the world in terms of the
number of international tourists.
We selected a sample of 219 key winery informants (i.e., managers) using a multistage sampling technique. In the rst stage, we
constructed a sample of ve DOs (Rioja, Ribera del Duero, Navarra,
Rueda, and La Mancha) from the Nielsen (an international market
research company) market share database by selecting the top ve
DOs in Spain; these DOs represent a total of 1290 wineries (Rioja,
600 wineries; Ribera del Duero, 248 wineries; Navarra, 113 wineries; Rueda, 53 wineries; La Mancha, 276 wineries). In the second
stage, we used simple random sampling to sample wineries within
each DO. The following number of wineries were selected from
each DO: Rioja, 55 wineries; Ribera del Duero, 44 wineries; Navarra, 40 wineries; Rueda, 34 wineries; La Mancha, 46 wineries.
After selecting a winery in the sample, we conducted in-person
interviews with the general manager (or the marketing manager
if the general manager was not available).
We also selected a sample of 598 winery visitors using a
multistage sampling technique. Consistent with the previous selection process, in the rst stage, we constructed a sample of ve
DOs (Rioja, Ribera del Duero, Navarra, Rueda, and La Mancha) from
the Nielsen market share database. In the second stage, we chose
the three most-visited wineries within each DO. Finally, we used
simple random sampling each day that we conducted interviews:
rst, to select three groups of visitors (the number of groups
visiting the winery on the day of the data collection was provided


mez et al. / Tourism Management 51 (2015) 210e222

M. Go

214

FR

NA

AI

CU

IN

H3

DO brand
image (BI)

AT

SC

AF

Destination
image (DI)

H1

H2
Wine
tourism
destination
brand equity
(BE)

BA

BL

PV

Note: FR: functional image; AI: affective image; NA: nature; CU: culture; IN: infrastructure and socioeconomic
environment; AT: atmosphere; SC: social conditions; AF: affective destination image; BA: awareness; BL: loyalty;
PV: perceived value.
Fig. 1. The model for tourism destination brand equity.

by the winery) and second, to sample visitors aged 18 and above

within each group. The following number of visitors were selected
from each winery: Rioja, 134 visitors; Ribera del Duero, 127 visitors;
Navarra, 98 visitors; Rueda, 103 visitors; La Mancha, 136 visitors.
The interviews were conducted face-to-face after a group
completed their winery visit.
The research sample characteristics indicate that the majority of
the 219 wineries are family-owned businesses that produce sparkling and still wines, with annual production that ranges from
50,000 to 5,000,000 L per year. Table 1 presents the main sociodemographic characteristics of the 598 visitors.

Table 1
Visitors' proles.
Variable

Categories

Percentage

Gender

Men
Women
Under 24
25e34
35e44
45e54
55e64
Over 65
Single
Living as a couple/married
Separated/divorced
Widower
Without studies
Primary studies
Secondary studies
Job training
University
Employee
Self-employed
Unemployed
Freelancer
Student
Retired
Housewife
Under V1000
V1000-V1500
V1501-V2000
V2001-V2500
V2501-V3000
Over V3000
Tourists
Same-day visitors

53.01%
46.99%
1.34%
27.76%
28.26%
16.56%
13.88%
12.21%
19.90%
70.73%
1.67%
7.69%
4.35%
12.21%
16.05%
14.21%
53.18%
58.53%
17.39%
1.67%
2.01%
1.34%
16.22%
2.84%
10.87%
13.04%
12.71%
11.20%
13.38%
38.80%
75.92%
24.08%

Age

3.2. Measures
Marital status

We drew the measures for the constructs included in the survey

from the literature. Table 2 presents the measures and the relevant
reference(s). All of the items were measured using seven-point
Likert scales.
To measure the DO brand image, we distinguished the cognitive
(functional) and affective components of the denition of the brand
image adopted in the study. We measured the cognitive and affective components using a ve-item and a three-item scale,
respectively.
To measure the destination image, we included both cognitive
and affective items. The cognitive component was captured
through ve dimensions, namely, nature (two-item scale), culture
(three-item scale), infrastructure and socioeconomic environment
(seven-item scale), atmosphere (four-item scale), and social conditions (ve-item scale). The emotional component was captured
through the affective destination image dimension (three-item
scale).
Finally, to measure wine tourism destination brand equity, we
distinguished three dimensions of the brand equity denition

Education level

Employment status

Household income per month

Type of visitor


mez et al. / Tourism Management 51 (2015) 210e222

M. Go

215

Table 2
Measures.
Higher-order constructs

Dimensions

Items

Literature review

DO brand image (BI)

Functional image (FR)

Wines from this DO are of high quality.

Wines from this DO have better characteristics
than its competitors.
Competitors' wines are usually cheaper than
wines from this DO.
This DO is one of the best brands in the sector.
This DO is consolidated in the market.
This DO brand is attractive.
This DO brand has a personality that
distinguishes itself from its competitors.
This DO brand does not disappoint its
customers.

Aaker (1996); Martin and Brown (1990);

Martnez and Pina (2009); Weiss, Anderson, and
MacInnis (1999)

Affective image (AI)

Destination image (DI)

Nature (NA)

Culture (CU)

Infrastructure and
socioeconomic
environment (IN)

Atmosphere (AT)

Social conditions (SC)

Affective destination
image (AF)
Wine tourism destination
brand equity (BE)

Wine tourism destination

brand awareness (BA)

Wine tourism destination

brand loyalty (BL)

Wine tourism destination

perceived value (PV)

This destination offers a great variety of fauna

and ora.
The natural parks at this destination present
beautiful landscapes.
This destination has places of historical or
cultural interest.
This is a destination where it is interesting to
learn about the local customs.
Interesting cultural activities are offered.
There are good shopping facilities.
There is good value for money.
The destination offers a good nightlife.
The gastronomy is varied.
There are good opportunities for recreational
activities.
The local infrastructure is highly developed.
There are high-quality accommodations.
It is a peaceful destination.
It is slightly crowded.
It is a relaxing destination.
The destination offers a good quality of life.
There is a high level of personal safety.
The tourist areas are clean.
There is good weather.
There is no pollution.
There are hospitable and friendly people.
It is an exciting destination.
It is a pleasant destination.
It is an arousing destination.
This wine tourism destination has a good name.
This wine tourism destination is very famous.
The characteristics of this destination come to
my mind quickly.
When I am thinking about wines, this wine
tourism destination is the rst that comes to
mind.
This wine tourism destination is a place that you
can enjoy.
This wine tourism destination is my preferred
choice for wine tourism.
Tourists are loyal to this wine destination.
This wine tourism destination is a place to
recommend to others.
The prices at this wine tourism destination are
reasonable.
Considering what you pay for a trip to this wine
tourism destination, you get much more than
when visiting other DOs.
Visiting this wine tourism destination is
economical.
The benets obtained from this wine tourism
destination are higher than the costs.
Visiting this wine tourism destination is a good
deal.

adopted in this study: awareness (four-item scale), loyalty (fouritem scale), and perceived value (ve-item scale).
The measures for the dimensions (rst-order constructs) were
reective, whereas the measures for the three main constructs
(higher-order constructs) were formative.

Martnez and Pina (2009)

Baloglu and McCleary (1999a, 1999b); Beerli

and Martn (2004); Echtner and Ritchie (1991,
1993, 2003); San Martn and Rodrguez (2008)
Baloglu and McCleary (1999a, 1999b); Beerli
and Martn (2004); Echtner and Ritchie (1991,
1993, 2003); San Martn and Rodrguez (2008)

Beerli and Martn (2004); Echtner and Ritchie

(1991, 1993, 2003); San Martn and Rodrguez
(2008)

Baloglu and McCleary (1999a, 1999b); Beerli

and Martn (2004); Echtner and Ritchie (1991,
1993, 2003); San Martn and Rodrguez (2008)
Baloglu and McCleary (1999a, 1999b); Beerli
and Martn (2004); Echtner and Ritchie (1991,
1993, 2003)

Beerli and Martn (2004); San Martn and

Rodrguez (2008); Russell (1980); Russell and
Pratt (1980)
Arnett, Laverie, and Meiers (2003); Boo et al.
(2009); Lassar, Mittal, and Sharma (1995);
Motameni and Shahrokhi (1998); Oh (2000);
Pappu and Quester (2006); Yoo and Donthu
(2001)

Arnett et al. (2003); Back and Parks (2003);

Baloglu (2002); Boo et al. (2009); Keller (2003);
Yoo and Donthu (2001)

Boo et al. (2009); Lassar et al. (1995); Dodds,

Monroe, and Grewal (1991); Oh (2000);
Sweeney and Soutar (2001)

4. Data analysis and results

We performed partial least squares (PLS) using the statistical
software package SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005) to
analyze the scale accuracy and structural model. PLS is a variance-


mez et al. / Tourism Management 51 (2015) 210e222

M. Go

216

based structural equation modeling method for causal-predictive

analysis (Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009). This modeling
approach was employed because both reective and formative
variables were included in the model (Chin, Marcolin, & Newsted,
2003; Reinartz, Haenlein, & Henseler, 2009).
A hierarchical latent variable model was used in this study;
specically, we employed a reective-formative-type model
(Becker, Klein, & Wetzels, 2012). The rst-order constructs (dimensions) were reectively measured, and the higher-order constructs (DO brand image, destination image, and wine tourism
destination brand equity) were formatively measured, as previously stated.
We performed a two-way multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) to test for group differences in the three higher-order
constructs across the DO groups (Rioja, Ribera del Duero, Navarra,
Rueda, and La Mancha) by respondent type (managers and visitors).
Signicant MANOVA results were followed by separate ANOVAs on
each of the dependent variables. We used the Bonferroni test to
control for Type I error.
Finally, we developed an index, which we refer to as the Tourism
Destination Brand Equity Index (TDBEI), to measure the strength of
the brand equity for each DO for winery managers and winery

mez, & Molina, 2012). The TDBEI was computed
visitors (Garca, Go
as follows:

TDBEI

BE$DI BE$BI DI$BI

2
2
2

4.1.1. Reective rst-order constructs

The reliability of the reective scales was tested using Cronbach's alpha and the composite reliability (CR). As shown in Table 3,
the Cronbach's alpha coefcients were all greater than 0.7
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), and the CR indexes were all greater
reskog, 1974), thus providing support for
than 0.8 (Werts, Linn, & Jo
scale reliability.
We tested for convergent validity by examining the factor
loadings of all scale items on their respective construct and the
average variance extracted (AVE). We removed ve items that had
standardized factor loadings of less than 0.6 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988)
from the two samples; the removed items included two social
condition items, two functional image items and one perceived
value item. The AVE values were all greater than 0.5 (Bagozzi & Yi,
1988), thus providing evidence of convergent validity.
We used Fornell and Larcker's (1981) test of shared variance
tz, Liehrbetween pairs of constructs and cross-loadings (Go
Gobbers, & Krafft, 2010) to assess the discriminant validity. As
indicated in Table 4, the AVE values for each reective construct
were greater than the corresponding squared inter-construct correlations. Furthermore, all of the items were loaded on their
intended constructs, and there was no item cross-loading, thus
providing evidence of discriminant validity.
4.1.2. Formative higher-order constructs
The formative variables were validated through the weights of
the rst-order constructs, the signicance of weights, and multicollinearity (Becker et al., 2012). As Table 5 indicates, the weights
obtained from the relationships between higher-order constructs
and lower-order constructs were all signicant except for the
weights of culture, social conditions (manager sample) and affective destination image (visitor sample). We decided not to remove
those two rst-order constructs because they each were nonsignicant in only one of the two samples. We tested for multicollinearity using the variance ination factor (VIF). All of the VIF
values were less than 3.3 (Petter, Straub, & Rai, 2007), thus
providing evidence of no multicollinearity.

1:50  TDBEI  73:50

TDBEI 73:504 DI BI BE 7

TDBEI 1:504 DI BI BE 1

4.1. Accuracy analysis

where BE, DI and BI are the means of the respective constructs. As

previously stated, all of items were measured on seven-point Likert
scales; thus, the TDBEI value could range from 1.5 to 73.5. The
strength of the brand equity of each DO for the two samples is
represented visually by a triangle in which the vertices represent
each of the higher-order constructs (Fig. 2).

4.2. Hypothesis testing

We employed the R-squared coefcient to assess the t of the
structural model. Approximately 75% of the variance in the DO
brand image was accounted for by the managers, and 36% was

BE

6
5
4

Maximum value (DI =BI =BE =7)

3
2

Minimum value (DI =BI =BE=1)

DI

BI

Note: DI: destination image; BI: DO brand image; BE: wine tourism destination brand equity
Fig. 2. The TDBEI.


mez et al. / Tourism Management 51 (2015) 210e222

M. Go

217

Table 3
Reliability and convergent validity of reective constructs.
First-order
constructs

Indicators

FR

Mean and SD

(a; CR; AVE)

Factor loading

Managers (MA)

Visitors (VI)

Managers (MA)

Visitors (VI)

FR1. High quality

FR2. Better quality
FR3. Higher price

5.54 (1.15)
5.43 (1.12)
5.52 (1.11)

6.07 (1.31)
6.07 (1.26)
6.08 (1.18)

0.93*** (54.63)
0.90*** (44.36)
0.91*** (36.87)

0.96*** (176.57)
0.92*** (85.00)
0.93*** (97.53)

MA: (0.90; 0.93; 0.84)

VI: (0.93; 0.96; 0.88)

AI

AI1. Attractive brand

AI2. Personality
AI3. Up to expectations

5.37 (1.14)
5.32 (1.10)
5.30 (1.04)

5.80 (1.21)
6.14 (1.25)
5.93 (1.11)

0.59*** (6.43)
0.92*** (63.10)
0.93*** (67.76)

0.93*** (125.56)
0.91*** (93.23)
0.88*** (64.55)

MA: (0.77; 0.87; 0.69)

VI: (0.89; 0.93; 0.82)

NA

NA1. Variety of nature

NA2. Beautiful landscapes

5.27 (1.23)
5.31 (1.15)

6.12 (1.03)
6.17 (1.17)

0.95*** (73.02)
0.95*** (78.14)

0.97*** (295.42)
0.96*** (192.62)

MA: (0.89; 0.95; 0.90)

VI: (0.93; 0.97; 0.94)

CU

CU1. History and culture

CU2. Customs
CU3. Cultural activities

5.46 (1.07)
5.43 (1.06)
5.40 (1.11)

6.03 (1.14)
6.01 (1.12)
6.22 (1.02)

0.95*** (76.23)
0.94*** (63.29)
0.88*** (31.03)

0.92*** (123.64)
0.90*** (74.80)
0.86*** (50.56)

MA: (0.91; 0.95; 0.85)

VI: (0.88; 0.92; 0.80)

IN

IN1.
IN2.
IN3.
IN4.
IN5.
IN6.
IN7.

Shopping
Good value for money
Nightlife
Gastronomy
Recreation
Infrastructure
Accommodation

4.78
5.08
4.69
5.39
4.76
5.28
5.35

(1.25)
(1.10)
(1.21)
(1.14)
(1.19)
(1.12)
(1.10)

5.75
5.86
5.33
6.27
5.92
6.07
6.06

(1.48)
(1.25)
(1.80)
(1.22)
(1.25)
(1.25)
(1.05)

0.84***
0.81***
0.69***
0.74***
0.87***
0.82***
0.80***

0.85***
0.79***
0.78***
0.69***
0.72***
0.76***
0.70***

MA: (0.90; 0.92; 0.64)

VI: (0.88; 0.90; 0.58)

AT

AT1.
AT2.
AT3.
AT4.

Peaceful
Slightly crowded
Relaxing
Quality of life

5.62
5.55
5.69
5.54

(1.11)
(1.02)
(1.05)
(1.09)

6.28
6.21
6.22
6.37

(0.96)
(1.02)
(1.04)
(0.97)

0.89*** (24.43)
0.90*** (30.66)
0.91*** (40.77)
0.861*** (16.55)

0.93*** (124.06)
0.90*** (77.58)
0.92*** (107.39)
0.918*** (89.95)

MA: (0.91; 0.94; 0.79)

VI: (0.93; 0.95; 0.84)

SC

SC1. Safety
SC2. Cleanliness
SC3. Climate

5.51 (1.11)
5.51 (1.08)
5.39 (1.14)

6.34 (1.03)
5.99 (1.13)
5.56 (1.50)

0.92*** (58.78)
0.93*** (73.17)
0.72*** (10.87)

0.91*** (96.41)
0.85*** (45.75)
0.86*** (52.53)

MA: (0.83; 0.90; 0.74)

VI: (0.84; 0.90; 0.76)

AF

AF1. Exciting
AF2. Pleasant
AF3. Arousing

5.36 (1.04)
5.38 (0.99)
5.38 (1.01)

6.08 (1.29)
6.06 (1.05)
5.97 (1.24)

0.86*** (29.72)
0.86*** (28.37)
0.87*** (20.43)

0.96*** (192.87)
0.90*** (74.36)
0.92*** (84.62)

MA: (0.83; 0.90; 0.74)

VI: (0.92; 0.95; 0.86)

BA

BA1. Good reputation

5.66 (1.13)

6.23 (1.02)

0.87*** (28.53)

0.93*** (135.52)

MA: (0.87; 0.91; 0.71)

VI: (0.92; 0.95; 0.81)

BA2. Well known

BA3. Quick to mind
BA4. First in mind

5.71 (1.02)
5.65 (1.05)
5.55 (1.18)

6.02 (0.94)
6.14 (1.01)
6.12 (1.08)

0.81*** (15.69)
0.86*** (27.63)
0.83*** (26.26)

0.82*** (46.23)
0.87*** (73.92)
0.96*** (287.32)

BL1. Enjoyable

5.44 (1.23)

6.23 (0.96)

0.84*** (30.35)

0.95*** (202.76)

BL2. Favorite
BL3. Loyalty
BL4. Recommendation

5.41 (1.17)
5.44 (1.21)
5.38 (1.32)

6.08 (1.06)
6.17 (0.88)
6.21 (0.87)

0.76*** (12.18)
0.82*** (19.44)
0.81*** (13.73)

0.89*** (71.59)
0.90*** (92.43)
0.96*** (215.07)

PV1. Reasonable prices

4.92 (1.46)

5.95 (1.31)

0.93*** (64.70)

0.96*** (186.75)

PV2. Economical
PV3. Benets
PV4. Good deal

5.42 (1.18)
5.04 (1.34)
4.98 (1.40)

5.96 (1.27)
5.95 (1.16)
6.03 (1.13)

0.90*** (42.96)
0.90*** (42.41)
0.88*** (37.33)

0.92*** (125.79)
0.93*** (153.95)
0.96*** (231.40)

BL

PV

(28.01)
(23.96)
(17.27)
(10.99)
(33.15)
(21.71)
(15.88)

(54.80)
(39.35)
(28.23)
(23.98)
(22.68)
(37.72)
(27.21)

MA: (0.82; 0.88; 0.65)

VI: (0.95; 0.96; 0.86)

MA: (0.92; 0.95; 0.82)

VI: (0.96; 0.97; 0.89)

Note: ***p < 0.01; (valor t bootstrap); SD: standard deviation; CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted; FR: functional image; AI: affective image; NA: nature;
CU: culture; IN: infrastructure and socioeconomic environment; AT: atmosphere; SC: social conditions; AF: affective destination image; BA: awareness; BL: loyalty;
PV: perceived value.

accounted for by the visitors, whereas the R-squared values for the
wine tourism destination brand equity were 60.9% for managers
and 39.6% for visitors. The R-squared values were moderate or high
(Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011), thus indicating that the models
were good representations of the data.
We used a PLS-based multi-group analysis (MGA) to identify the
differences in the path coefcients and test the hypotheses
(Henseler et al., 2009). To apply this novel approach, we employed a
separate bootstrapping resampling procedure (500 samples) for
each sample, and the parameter estimates of the two samples obtained from bootstrapping were used as the input to test the hypotheses regarding group differences (Henseler et al., 2009).
Table 6 reports the parameter estimates for the hypothesized paths
for each sample and the probability that there was a difference in
the parameters between the two samples. The results demonstrate
that the positive inuence of DO brand image on wine tourism

destination brand equity (H1) was stronger for wineries (b 0.20,

p < 0.01) than for visitors (b 0.19, p < 0.01), but there were no
signicant differences between the two groups (MGA pvalue 0.45). However, there were signicant differences in terms
of the positive effect of destination brand image on both wine
tourism destination brand equity (H2) (wineries: b 0.04, p > 0.10;
visitors: b 0.19, p < 0.01; MGA p-value 0.01) and DO brand
image (H3) (wineries: b 0.07, p < 0.05; visitors: b 0.19, p < 0.01;
MGA p-value 0.01).
4.3. Testing for group differences in DO brand image, destination
image and wine tourism destination brand equity across groups of
DO type by respondent type
The main and interaction effects both provided evidence that
the DO brand image, destination image, and wine tourism


mez et al. / Tourism Management 51 (2015) 210e222

M. Go

218
Table 4
Discriminant validity of reective constructs.

Managers

Visitors

NA

CU

IN

AT

SC

AF

FR

AI

BA

BL

PV

NA
CU
IN
AT
SC
AF
FR
AI
BA
BL
PV

0.90
0.58
0.49
0.39
0.49
0.33
0.26
0.31
0.17
0.14
0.03

0.85
0.48
0.39
0.49
0.39
0.25
0.30
0.12
0.13
0.06

0.64
0.44
0.45
0.54
0.26
0.27
0.16
0.09
0.05

0.79
0.48
0.29
0.27
0.23
0.06
0.10
0.07

0.75
0.34
0.37
0.35
0.08
0.16
0.09

0.74
0.19
0.17
0.06
0.07
0.03

0.84
0.69
0.02
0.06
0.01

0.69
0.07
0.09
0.03

0.71
0.42
0.27

0.65
0.29

0.82

NA
CU
IN
AT
SC
AF
FR
AI
BA
BL
PV

0.94
0.18
0.11
0.05
0.29
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.14
0.15
0.03

0.80
0.28
0.14
0.28
0.20
0.17
0.23
0.30
0.19
0.08

0.58
0.10
0.20
0.23
0.10
0.26
0.19
0.18
0.11

0.84
0.10
0.14
0.60
0.28
0.11
0.09
0.12

0.76
0.12
0.16
0.18
0.23
0.14
0.06

0.86
0.13
0.17
0.13
0.14
0.10

0.88
0.27
0.13
0.10
0.07

0.82
0.21
0.17
0.15

0.81
0.27
0.16

0.86
0.17

0.89

Note: Diagonal: average variance extracted (AVE). Below diagonal: squared inter-construct correlation; NA: nature; CU: culture; IN: infrastructure and socioeconomic
environment; AT: atmosphere; SC: social conditions; AF: affective destination image; FR: functional image; AI: affective image; BA: awareness; BL: loyalty; PV: perceived
value.

destination brand equity are inuenced by the DO type and by the

respondent type. Using Wilks's lambda, there was a statistically
signicant difference between managers and visitors for the combined dependent variable (L 0.87, F (3.81) 41.15, p < 0.01) and
among designations of origin for the combined dependent variable
(L 0.91, F (12.21) 6.79, p < 0.01).
Separately considering the results for the dependent variables,
the managers' perceptions were signicantly more favorable than
those of the visitors. Thus, the main effect of the type of respondent
was signicant for all three key constructs. Managers reported
higher levels of DO brand image (F (1.81) 37.87, p < 0.01),
destination image (F (1.81) 72.59, p < 0.01), and wine tourism
destination brand equity (F (1.81) 120.63, p < 0.01).
Furthermore, the results for the main effect of the type of DO
demonstrated that there are signicant differences among the DOs
in terms of DO brand image (F (4.81) 14.20, p < 0.01), destination
image (F (4.81) 6.30, p < 0.01), and wine tourism destination
brand equity (F (4.81) 8.48, p < 0.01). To identify the signicant
differences, we conducted follow-up post-hoc ANOVAs, and we
used the Bonferroni test to avoid Type I error. The results demonstrated that the mean score for wine tourism destination brand
equity for Rioja (M 6.00, SD 0.72) was signicantly different
from those for Ribera del Duero (M 5.57, SD 0.95), Navarra

(M 5.53, SD 0.74), Rueda (M 5.51, SD 0.83), and La Mancha

(M 5.56, SD 0.84). The mean score for destination image for
Rioja (M 6.03, SD 0.70) was signicantly different from those
for Ribera del Duero (M 5.57, SD 1.11), Navarra (M 5.51,
SD 1.01), Rueda (M 5.41, SD 1.11), and La Mancha (M 5.59,
SD 1.02). Finally, the mean score for DO brand image for Rioja
(M 6.08, SD 1.01) was signicantly different than those for
Rueda (M 5.64, SD 0.97) and La Mancha (M 5.61, SD 1.37).
4.4. TDBEI
The results indicated that Rioja had the highest TDBEI for both
winery managers and winery visitors (TDBEIMA 61.60;
TDBEIVI 52.52) and La Mancha and Rueda had the lowest TDBEI
for managers (TDBEIMA 45.43) and visitors (TDBEIVI 41.11),
respectively. The index values for managers were greater than
those for visitors in four out of ve DOs, with La Mancha as the
exception (see Fig. 3).
5. Discussion
This study departs from previous research by establishing links
among DO brand image, destination image, and wine tourism

Table 5
Validation of formative constructs.
Higher-order constructs

DO brand image (BI)

Destination image (DI)

Wine tourism destination brand equity (BE)

Note: ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10.

Dimensions (rst-order constructs)

FR
AI
NA
CU
IN
AT
SC
AF
BA
BL
PV

Functional image
Affective image
Nature
Culture
Infrastructure & socioeconomic environment
Atmosphere
Social conditions
Affective destination image
Awareness
Loyalty
Perceived value

Weights

VIF

Managers

Visitors

Managers

Visitors

0.56***
0.30***
0.18**
0.00
0.22**
0.15*
0.08
0.30***
0.25***
0.40***
0.16*

0.37***
0.16***
0.13***
0.25***
0.16***
0.16***
0.11**
0.05
0.11**
0.26***
0.08**

3.13
3.13
2.98
2.95
3.24
2.26
2.60
2.29
1.83
2.02
1.51

1.36
1.36
1.50
1.76
1.59
1.26
1.73
1.51
1.89
1.65
1.29


mez et al. / Tourism Management 51 (2015) 210e222

M. Go

219

Table 6
Hypothesis-testing results.
Hypothesized paths

H1: BI / BE
H2: DI / BE
H3: DI / BI

Managers

Visitors

Multi-group comparison

Estimate

T-value

Estimate

T-value

p-value

Result

0.20***
0.04
0.07**

3.36
1.01
2.06

0.19***
0.19***
0.19***

4.04
4.36
5.02

0.45
0.01
0.01

MA VI
VI > MA
VI > MA

Note: ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10; BI: DO brand image; DI: destination image; BE: wine tourism destination brand equity.

destination brand equity. This study conceptualized and operationalized wine tourism destination brand equity and compared
two groups (managers and visitors) through an MGA. Therefore,
this study complements previous research in the wine tourism
literature in several aspects.

First, the study extends the work of Lockshin and Spawton

(2001), Orth et al. (2005), and Nowak et al. (2006) by empirically
testing wine tourism destination brand equity and the inuence of
a number of determinants. It extends the work of Charters and
O'Neill (2001) and O'Neill and Charters (2000) by adopting and

Fig. 3. The TDBEI for each DO.

220

mez et al. / Tourism Management 51 (2015) 210e222

M. Go

comparing an internal perspective and an external perspective

within the research area of wine tourism destination brand equity.
Second, a relatively novel approach (PLS-MGA) for multi-group
comparison was used in the study to test the hypotheses. The results demonstrated that destination image was signicantly more
important for visitors than for managers in terms of shaping the
brand equity of the wine tourism destination and the image of the
DO brand. A plausible explanation for the lack of signicant differences between the two groups regarding the inuence of DO
brand image on wine tourism destination brand equity (and thus
the importance of DO brand image as a determinant of brand equity
for managers) was that managers felt these two elements were
similar in the sense that they are controllable elements that
constitute a manager's decision area that are linked with their responsibilities and role in the company.
Third, this research demonstrated that managers' perceptions
were more favorable than visitors' for DO brand image, destination
image, and wine tourism destination brand equity. Thus, in
agreement with Zouni and Kouremenos (2008), there is a gap between the internal and the external views.
Finally, the assessment of wine tourism destination brand equity
and destination image was signicantly more positive for Rioja than
the other four DOs. For DO brand image, this difference was significant when Rioja was compared with Rueda and La Mancha. This
outcome is unsurprising because of the ve DOs studies, Rioja is the

n de Origen
only DO that has been awarded DOC (Denominacio
Calicada) status, which is the highest category of wine in Spain.
6. Conclusions
6.1. Theoretical implications
Although the branding literature emerged in the 1940s, research
regarding wine tourism destination branding is in its infancy.
Limited research has analyzed the relationships among DO brand
image, destination image, and wine tourism destination brand
equity. Thus, our study aimed to shed light on the research area
through a number of theoretical contributions.
First, this study contributes to the tourism destination literature
and, specically, to the wine destination literature by proposing
and empirically testing a theoretical framework for wine tourism
destination brand equity that incorporates the inuence of DO
brand image and destination image on the brand equity of a wine
destination.
Second, this work combined and compared two approaches of
wine tourism destination brand equity (managers and visitors) by
using a PLS MGA. Long-term results of brand equity may be
enhanced through customer relationship management and understanding visitors' needs.
Third, this study contributes to the understanding and application of hierarchical latent variables in the wine tourism destination literature and the PLS-SEM literature by using a more
advanced and complex model, a reective-formative type model.
Thus, unlike most previous studies, it incorporated constructs that
were formatively measured.
Finally, this work contributes to the wine tourism destination
literature by developing an index, the TDBEI, to assess the brand
equity strength of each DO for both winery managers and winery
visitors.
6.2. Managerial implications
The results of this study are important for consultants, practitioners, and policy makers that are involved with tourism campaigns, especially wine tourism campaigns. The gap between the

internal and external views calls for the development of campaigns

to enhance the image that visitors hold and thus increase the
number of tourists. Events such as wine gatherings and gastronomic
symposiums held at universities and culinary schools and participation in business meetings can enhance the perceptions and, in
turn, the added value and brand equity of wine tourism destinations.
The images of destinations and DOs can help strengthen the
brand equity of wine tourism destinations, especially for visitors.
Thus, developing and reinforcing favorable, strong, and unique
destination and DO associations is important for increasing their
value. Joint campaigns are advised to enhance the images of destinations and DOs and, consequently, the value of wine tourism
destination brands. Wineries should work with tourism organizations in the development of communication campaigns.
The Rioja DO and its respective wineries can lead the development and improvement of the brand equity and image of wine
tourism destinations in Spain. This development will increase exports, investments, and the number of tourists.
6.3. Limitations and further research
This study has limitations that create avenues for further
research. First, the focus of this study is on two of the most relevant
stakeholders in tourism destinations, managers and visitors.
Considering the importance of local residents for the success of
tourism development, future research will benet from incorporating these additional stakeholders. Second, the study has limited
generalizability because we focused on the ve largest DOs (Rioja,
Ribera del Duero, Navarra, Rueda, and La Mancha), the most visited
wineries, one country (Spain), and two groups of participants
(managers and visitors). Future research could replicate this study
across different countries (e.g., Australia, France, New Zealand, and
South Africa), DOs, and wineries. Third, selecting visitors from only
the most-visited wineries within each DO could have led to bias.
Finally, further research could investigate the bidirectional relationships between the constructs included in the study (e.g., the
DO brand image-destination image relationship).
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness for the nancial support provided for this research
under the 2012 Call for R&D projects (Project reference number:
ECO2012-31300).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.05.019
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California
Management Review, 38(3), 102e120.
Alonso, A. D., Sheridan, L., & Scherrer, P. (2008). Importance of tasting rooms for
Canary Islands' wineries. British Food Journal, 110(10), 977e988.
Arnett, D. B., Laverie, D. A., & Meiers, A. (2003). Developing parsimonious retailer
equity indexes using Partial Least Squares analysis: a method and applications.
Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 161e170.
Ashton, A. S. (2014). Tourism destination brand image development e an analysis
based on stakeholders' perception: a case study from Southland, New Zealand.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 20(3), 279e292.
Back, K. J., & Parks, S. C. (2003). A brand loyalty model involving cognitive, affective,
and conative brand loyalty and customer satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research, 27(4), 419e435.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74e94.


mez et al. / Tourism Management 51 (2015) 210e222

M. Go
Balmer, J. M. T. (1995). Corporate branding and connoisseurship. Journal of General
Management, 21(1), 24e46.
Baloglu, S. (2002). Dimensions of customer loyalty: separating friends from well
wishers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 47e59.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999a). A model of destination image formation.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868e897.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999b). US international pleasure travelers' images of
four Mediterranean destinations: a comparison of visitors and nonvisitors.
Journal of Travel Research, 38(2), 144e152.
Becker, J. M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical latent variable models in
PLS-SEM: guidelines for using reective-formative type models. Long Range
Planning, 45(4/6), 359e394.
Beerli, A., & Martn, J. D. (2004). Tourists' characteristics and the perceived image of
tourist destinations: a quantitative analysis e a case study of Lanzarote, Spain.
Tourism Management, 25(5), 623e636.

, J. E., Sa

nchez, M. I., & S

Bigne
anchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables
and after purchase behaviour: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22(6),
607e616.
Blain, C., Levy, S. E., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). Destination branding: insights and
practices from destination management organizations. Journal of Travel
Research, 43(4), 328e338.
Boo, S., Busser, J., & Baloglu, S. (2009). A model of customer-based brand equity and
its application to multiple destinations. Tourism Management, 30(2), 219e231.
Bosnjak, M. (2010). Negative symbolic aspects in destination branding: exploring
the role of the undesired self on web-based vacation information search intentions among potential rst-time visitors. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 16(4),
323e330.
Brown, G., Havitz, M. E., & Getz, D. (2006). Relationship between wine involvement
and wine-related travel. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 21(1), 31e46.
Bruwer, J. (2003). South African wine routes: some perspectives on the wine
tourism industry's structural dimensions and wine tourism product. Tourism
Management, 24(4), 423e435.
Bruwer, J., Coode, M., Saliba, A., & Herbst, F. (2013). Wine tourism experience effects
of the tasting room on consumer brand loyalty. Tourism Analysis, 18(4),
399e414.
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism
Management, 21(1), 97e116.
Bullmore, J. (1984). The brand and its image re-visited. International Journal of
Advertising, 3(3), 235e238.
Byrd, F. T., & Gustke, L. (2011). Using decision trees to identify tourism stakeholders.
Journal of Place Management and Development, 4(2), 148e168.
Cai, L. A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism
Research, 29(3), 720e742.
Carlsen, J. (2004). A review of global wine tourism research. Journal of Wine
Research, 15(1), 5e13.
Carmichael, B. A. (2005). Understanding the wine tourism experience for winery
visitors in the Niagara region, Ontario, Canada. Tourism Geographies, 7(2),
185e204.
Cawley, J. (1992). Using market conventions to create a new wine brand. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 4(3), 10e15.
Charters, S., & Ali-Knight, J. (2000). Wine tourism e a thirst for knowledge? International Journal of Wine Marketing, 12(3), 70e80.
Charters, S., & Ali-Knight, J. (2002). Who is the wine tourist? Tourism Management,
23(3), 311e319.
Charters, S., & O'Neill, M. (2001). Service quality at the cellar door: a comparison
between regions. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13(3), 7e17.
Chen, C. F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect
behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28(4), 1115e1122.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). Partial least squares latent
variable modelling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a
Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study.
Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189e217.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the inuence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of
Travel Research, 17(4), 18e23.
Dinnie, K. (2008). Branded entertainment: product placement and brand strategy in
the entertainment business. Journal of Brand Management, 16(3), 216e217.
Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. (1990). In search of brand image: a foundation analysis.
Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1), 110e119.
Dodd, T. H. (1995). Opportunities and pitfalls of tourism in a developing wine industry. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 7(1), 5e16.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store
information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research,
28(3), 307e319.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). The meaning and measurement of destination image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), 2e12.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: an
empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 2e13.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2003). The meaning and measurement of destination image. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(1), 37e48.
Ehrenberg, A. S. C., & Goodhardt, G. (2000). New brands: near-instant loyalty.
Journal of Marketing Management, 16(6), 607e617.
Famularo, B., Bruwer, J., & Li, E. (2010). Region of origin as choice factor: wine
knowledge and wine tourism involvement inuence. International Journal of
Wine Business Research, 22(4), 362e385.

221

Farquhar, P. H. (1994). Strategic challenges for branding. Marketing Management,

3(2), 8e15.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39e50.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA:
Pitman.

mez, M., & Molina, A. (2012). A destination-branding model: an
Garca, J. A., Go
empirical analysis based on stakeholders. Tourism Management, 33(3), 646e661.
Gartner, W. C. (1993). Image formation process. In M. Uysal, & D. R. Fesenmaier
(Eds.), Communication and channel systems in tourism marketing (pp. 191e215).
New York: Haworth.
Getz, D., & Brown, G. (2006). Critical success factors for wine tourism regions: a
demand analysis. Tourism Management, 27(1), 146e158.
Getz, D., Dowling, R., Carlsen, J., & Anderson, D. (1999). Critical success factors for
wine tourism. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 11(3), 20e43.
Gilmore, F. (2002). A country e can it be repositioned? Spain e the success story of
country branding. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4e5), 281e293.

mez, M., & Molina, A. (2012). Wine tourism in Spain: denomination of origin
Go
effects on brand equity. International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(4),
353e368.
tz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K., & Krafft, M. (2010). Evaluation of structural equation
Go
models using the Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach. In V. Esposito,
W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least Squares:
Concepts, methods, and applications (pp. 691e711). Berlin: Springer.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(3), 139e151.
Hall, C. M., & Macionis, N. (1998). Wine tourism in Australia and New Zealand. In
R. W. Butler, C. M. Hall, & J. M. Jenkins (Eds.), Tourism and recreation in rural
areas (pp. 197e224). Chichester: John Wiley.
Hankinson, G. (2004). Relational network brands: towards a conceptual model of
place brands. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 109e121.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of Partial Least Squares
path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing,
20, 277e319.
Howley, M., & van Westering, J. (2008). Developing wine tourism: a case study of
the attitude of English wine producers to wine tourism. Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 14(1), 87e95.
Jarvis, L. P., & Wilcox, J. B. (1976). Repeat-purchasing behavior and attitudinal brand
loyalty: additional evidence. In K. L. Bernhart (Ed.), Educator's proceedings (pp.
151e152). American Marketing Association.
Johnson, R., & Bruwer, J. (2007). Regional brand image and perceived wine quality:
the consumer perspective. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 19(4),
276e297.
Kapferer, J. N. (2004). The new strategic brand management. London and New York:
Kogan Page.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing consumer-based
brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1e22.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing
brand equity. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kim, S., Han, H., Holland, S., & Byon, K. (2009). Structural relationships among
involvement, destination brand equity, satisfaction and destination visit intentions: the case of Japanese outbound travelers. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
15(4), 349e365.
Konecnik, M., & Gartner, W. C. (2007). Customer-based brand equity for a destination. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2), 400e421.
Kotler, P., Haider, D. H., & Rein, I. (1993). Marketing Places: Attracting investment,
Industry, and tourism to cities, states and nations. New York: Macmillan.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 11e19.
Lawson, F., & Baud-Bovy, M. (1977). Tourism and recreational development. London:
Architectural Press.
Lockshin, L., & Spawton, T. (2001). Using involvement and brand equity to develop a
wine tourism strategy. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13(1), 72e81.
Martin, G. S., & Brown, T. J. (1990). In search of brand equity: the conceptualization
and measurement of the brand impression construct. In M. L. Childers (Ed.),
Marketing theory and applications, 2 (pp. 431e438). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Martnez, E., & Pina, J. M. (2009). Modeling the brand extensions' inuence on
brand image. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 50e60.
Marzo-Navarro, M., & Pedraja-Iglesias, M. (2009). Prole of a wine tourist and the

n,
correspondence between destination and preferred wine: a study in Arago
Spain. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 26(7), 670e687.
Mitchell, R., & Hall, C. M. (2004). The post-visit consumer behaviour of New Zealand
winery visitors. Journal of Wine Research, 15(1), 39e49.
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2002). New Zealand, 100% pure. The creation
of a powerful niche destination brand. Brand Management, 9(4/5), 335e354.
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2003). Destination branding and the role of
the stakeholders: the case of New Zealand. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3),
285e299.
Motameni, R., & Shahrokhi, M. (1998). Brand equity valuation: a global perspective.
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7(4), 275e290.
Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. P., & Smith, B. (2000). The destination product and its
impact on traveler perceptions. Tourism Management, 21(1), 43e52.

222

mez et al. / Tourism Management 51 (2015) 210e222

M. Go

Nowak, L. I., Thach, L., & Olsen, J. E. (2006). Wowing the millennials: creating brand
equity in the wine industry. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(5),
316e323.
Nowak, L. I., & Washburn, J. H. (2002). Building brand equity: consumer reactions to
proactive environmental policies by the winery. International Journal of Wine
Marketing, 14(3), 5e19.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Oh, H. (2000). Diners' perceptions of quality, value, and satisfaction. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 58e66.
Orth, U. R., Wolf, M. M., & Dodd, T. H. (2005). Dimensions of wine region equity and
their impact on consumer preferences. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(2), 88e97.
O'Neill, M., & Charters, S. (2000). Service quality at the cellar door: Implications for
Western Australia's developing wine tourism industry. Managing Service Quality, 10(2), 112e122.
O'Neill, M., Palmer, A., & Charters, S. (2002). Wine production as a service experience e the effects of service quality on wine sales. The Journal of Services
Marketing, 16(4), 342e362.
Pappu, R., & Quester, P. (2006). A consumer-based method for retailer equity
measurement: results of an empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 13(5), 317e329.
Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in information
systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623e656.
Pike, S. (2007). Customer-based brand equity for destinations: practical DMO performance measures. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 22(1), 51e61.
Pike, S., Bianchi, C., Kerr, G., & Patti, C. (2010). Consumer-based brand equity for
Australia as a long-haul tourism destination in an emerging market. International Marketing Review, 27(4), 434e449.
Pitta, D. A., & Katsanis, L. P. (1995). Understanding brand equity for successful brand
extension. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 51e64.
Poiesz, T. (1989). The image concept: its place in consumer psychology. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 10(4), 457e472.
Prebensen, N. K. (2007). Exploring tourists' images of a distant destination. Tourism
Management, 28(3), 747e756.
Quintal, V., Phau, I., & Polczynski, A. (2014). Destination brand image of Western
Australia's South-West region: perceptions of local versus international tourists.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 20(1), 41e54.
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the
efcacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 26(4), 332e344.
Riezebos, R. (2003). Brand management. A theoretical and practical approach. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta. Available at
http://www.smartpls.com. Last accessed Nov. 26, 2014.
Ritchie, B. J. R., & Ritchie, R. J. B. (1998). The branding of tourism destination: past
achievements and future trends in destination marketing e scope and limitations. In Reports of the 48th Congress, AIEST, St.Gallen (pp. 89e116).
Rosch, E. H., Simpson, C., & Miller, R. S. (1976). Structural bases of typicality effects.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(4),
491e502.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39(6), 1161e1178.
Russell-Bennett, R., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Coote, L. V. (2007). Involvement,
satisfaction and brand loyalty in a small business services setting. Journal of
Business Research, 60(12), 1253e1260.
Russell, J. A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of affective quality attributed to
environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 311e322.
San Martn, H., & Rodrguez, I. A. (2008). Exploring the cognitiveeaffective nature of
destination image and the role of psychological factors in its formation. Tourism
Management, 29(2), 263e277.
Saraniemi, S. (2011). From destination image building to identity-based branding.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality, 5(3), 247e254.
Sartori, A., Mottironi, C., & Corigliano, M. A. (2012). Tourist destination brand equity
and internal stakeholders. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 18(4), 327e340.
Scherrer, P., Alonso, A., & Sheridan, L. (2009). Expanding the destination image:
wine tourism in the Canary Islands. International Journal of Tourism Research,
11(5), 451e463.
Sheridan, L., Alonso, A. D., & Scherrer, P. (2009). Wine tourism as a development
initiative in rural Canary Island communities. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 3(3), 291e305.
Stoney, C., & Winstanley, D. (2001). Stakeholding: confusion or utopia? Mapping the
conceptual terrain. Journal of Management Studies, 38(5), 603e626.

Sweeney, J., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: the development of a
multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203e220.
Tasci, A., & Kozak, M. (2006). Destination brands vs destination images: do we know
what we mean? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12(4), 299e317.
Teas, R. K., & Laczniak, R. N. (2004). Measurement process context effects in
empirical tests of causal models. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 162e174.
Tsai, S. (2005). Utility, cultural symbolism and emotion: a comprehensive model of
brand purchase value. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(3),
277e291.
Veres, D., Clark, H., & Golbourne, D. (2008). Increasing the contribution of special
events to Niagara's tourism industry. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 20(3), 313e319.
Walmsley, D. J., & Young, M. (1998). Evaluative images and tourism: the use of
personal constructs to describe the structure of destination images. Journal of
Travel Research, 36(3), 65e69.
Weiss, A. M., Anderson, E., & MacInnis, D. J. (1999). Reputation management as a
motivation for sales structure decisions. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 74e89.
reskog, K. G. (1974). Intraclass reliability estimates:
Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., & Jo
testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
34(1), 25e33.
Williams, P. (2001). Positioning wine tourism destinations: an image analysis. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13(3), 42e59.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional
consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1e14.
Zouni, G., & Kouremenos, A. (2008). Do tourism providers know their visitors? an
investigation of tourism experience at a destination. Tourism and Hospitality
Research, 8(4), 282e297.

mez PhD is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at

Mar Go

mez is
the University of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). Mar Go
responsible for Business Placements for her Faculty. Her
research interests are focused on services, retailing, relationship marketing, wine tourism, and branding. She has
presented several researches at international conferences
such as EMAC, AMS and so on. She has published in journals including the Business Research Quarterly, British Food
Journal, International Journal of Consumer Studies, International Journal of Tourism Research, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Quality & Quantity, Tourism Management, among others. She has won the Extraordinary
Doctorate Prize at the University of Castilla-La Mancha
(2011).

Carmen Lopez PhD is a lecturer in Marketing at Plymouth

University (UK). Her main research interests include
country-of-origin effect, image transfer and associative
network, and her work has appeared in European Journal
of Marketing and Journal of Strategic Marketing, among
others.

Arturo Molina PhD is Associate Professor of Marketing at

the University of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). His research
interests are focused on branding, market research,
retailing, relationship marketing, and tourism. He has published in journals including Annals of Tourism Research,
Current Issues in Tourism, European Journal of Marketing, International Journal of Bank Marketing, International Journal
of Consumer Studies, International Journal of Tourism
Research, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Qualitative Market Research, Quality & Quantity, Tourism Management, among others. He has spent several periods of
research at European and North American Universities.
He has won several awards for his research.