a comparative study of the use of “iconic” versus “generic” advertising images for...

152

A Comparative Study of the Use of “Iconic” versus “Generic” Advertising Images for Destination Marketing

Stephen W. LitvinCollege of Charleston

Nacef MouriGeorge Mason University

This research reports the results of an empirical study that compared the effectiveness of two advertising approaches, “generic” versus “iconic,” in affecting a destination image. While politics may dictate that a state (as studied herein) or national tourism office may feel the need to spread advertising funds across a range of destinations, the experiment conducted for this study suggests that a focus on well-known iconic sites may well represent the more effective approach.

Keywords: iconic advertising; generic advertising; classical conditioning; destination marketing; destination image

Open any travel magazine and you will find an array of state and national tourism office (STO, NTO)

advertisements promoting visitation. All, some more blessed than others, have attractive scenery and interest-ing places to promote. From an advertising perspective, their challenge is to capture those images most likely to enhance a destination’s image, motivate a purchase deci-sion, and induce visitation. As these organizations’ suc-cess is most often measured by visitor arrival numbers and/or tourism export contributions to the economy (e.g., Kotler, Haider, and Rein 1993; Middleton 2001; Sheehan, Ritchie, and Hudson 2007), creating and presenting advertising that maximizes the effectiveness of their lim-ited marketing budget is critically important. Adding to the challenge is the complexity that faces many NTOs and STOs as they formulate marketing plans amid a political environment that demands the satisfying of a broad range of often-contradictory constituent desires.

The genesis for the current research was a series of print advertisements created by South Carolina’s Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (SCPRT), the state’s official government tourism office. These advertisements, placed in national publications Travel + Leisure, Southern Living, and Field & Stream, featured beautiful scenes from lesser-known, one could argue obscure, tourism destinations across the state—Murrell’s Inlet, Daufuskie Island, James Island, and Caesars Head State Park—versus South Carolina’s well-known destinations of Hilton Head Island, Charleston–Kiawah,

and Myrtle Beach. Each advertisement employed the identical tagline, “It’s time.” For example, the James Island advertisement overlaid a photo of a couple strolling a picturesque tidal marsh dock with the caption, “Sometimes, all you need are peace and quiet and each other. . . . It’s time.” The advertisements were attractive and professional but collectively begged the question as to whether featuring these inviting yet relatively unknown locales versus the state’s major tourist draws represented the most effective marketing strategy—the research question addressed herein. And while the advertising campaign that spurred this research was South Carolina specific, this article is in no way intended as criticism of SCPRT’s efforts. Their approach simply induced the questions asked. Instead, it is the authors’ intention that the outcome of this research effort provides guidance to destination marketers, regardless of locale.

Destination Image

The importance of destination image is well established in the tourism literature. Defined as the visual or mental

Journal of Travel ResearchVolume 48 Number 2

November 2009 152-161© 2009 SAgE Publications

10.1177/0047287509332332http://jtr.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

Authors’ Note: We would like to thank the College of Charleston’s Office of Tourism Management for its initial funding of this study and george Mason University’s School of Management’s “Research Pool” Coordinators for their assistance with our data collection. In addition, Steve Litvin thanks and acknowledges the Fulbright Scholar’s Program for its support of his research.

by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010jtr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jtr.sagepub.com/

Litvin, Mouri / “Iconic” versus “generic” Advertising Images 153

impression of a place held by the general public (Milman and Pizam 1995), destination image has been characterized as one of the most important aspects of destination posi-tioning (Echtner and Ritchie 1993). And while Dadgostar and Isotalo (1992) warn that the direct relationship between destination image and tourist patronage behavior remains an inconclusive proposition, much of the literature strongly indicates that destination image affects destination selection (gartner 1996). Furthermore, as one would expect, it has often been noted that destinations with positive images are those most likely to be selected by travel consumers (e.g., Alhemoud and Armstrong 1996; Woodside and Lysonski 1989).

A stream of literature explores how travelers form a destination image. gunn (1997; in an update of his 1972 and 1988 work) was among the first to break the image-formation process into component parts. He suggested that people held an organic image of a destination based on their assimilation of information gleaned from secondary sources, such as newspapers, periodicals, and books. A second higher level of image is derived from a destination’s conscious effort to develop, promote, and advertise its product. gartner (1996) modified gunn’s image formulation typology and expanded the process into an eight-level continuum ranging from overt induced I, the point at which awareness through advertising commences, to organic, subsequent to visitation when “a new destination is formed in the minds [sic] of the visitor” (gartner 1996, p. 469). Destination image, therefore, can be seen as a fluid concept, with different segments holding different images and with each individual’s image likely affected by both personal experience and the destination’s efforts to promote itself.

Appreciating the importance of promotion, Richardson and Cohen (1993, p. 103) conducted a study on the use of state advertising slogans in the marketing of U.S. states as tourism destinations. These authors found the various slogans used to be generally ineffective as the “states themselves were geologically and culturally diverse entities whose many and diverse appeals cannot be captured in a single slogan.” For many states, this was compounded by a mismatch between geographical and political boundaries, further making the crafting of an effective statewide slogan elusive. Examples of proble-matic efforts discussed were Pennsylvania’s “America Starts Here,” which worked well for Philadelphia but only loosely connected to the balance of the state; Arizona’s “grand Canyon State” slogan, which served northern Arizona well but lacked relevance elsewhere; “Yes! Michigan!” and “Discover Idaho,” neither of which Richardson and Cohen suggested conveyed anything special about their state; and “Wisconsin. You’re among

friends,” a generic phrase these authors felt provided tourists no particular reason to visit.

Um and Crompton (1990, pp. 432-33) had noted the same problems subsequently discussed by Richardson and Cohen (1993). They concluded that the crafting of an overall image for a destination was a complex chal-lenge, as they saw image as a “gestalt . . . a holistic construct . . . derived from attitudes towards the destination’s perceived tourism attributes.” These authors added that destinations can work to create a gestalt of their own choosing but noted the challenge of selling a product that already exists and, per Kolb (2006), unlike consumer goods, one that marketers have but limited ability to alter.

It has also been noted that a destination’s overall image is often intrinsically tied to one or several easily recognized and dominant tourism features (e.g., Bowie and Buttle 2004; Judd and Fainstein 1999; Voase 1999). For example, the image of a double-decker bus induces thoughts of the city of London. Equally strong are the connections between the Eiffel Tower and Paris, the pyramids and Cairo, and San Francisco with its golden gate Bridge. Similarly, for many, the Coliseum equals Rome, the Hollywood sign depicts Los Angeles, and visions of white buildings with soft curves poised over an azure sea have become symbolic of the greek Islands. Such images, a part of the overall gestalt, are referred to in the tourism literature as “iconic,” often so powerful that they become juxtaposed and quasi synonymous with the destination itself (Voase 1999). And while it is the fortunate destination that has what Judd and Fainstein (1999) refer to as “place luck,” possessing a truly special tourism draw such as those noted above, most destinations can point to a place or feature that one can readily identify as belonging to and representing the destination.

This article, extending Richardson and Cohen’s (1993) work, looks not at slogans but rather at the use of “generic” versus “iconic” advertising to promote a positive destina-tion image and the desire to visit. The key question is as follows: should generic advertising be used to portray an overall positive image and enhance people’s attitudes toward a “parent” destination, or should iconic advertising be used to capitalize on the existing strong image enjoyed by the icons within the parent destination? The advertising literature on ad persuasion suggests, in general, that advertising should attempt to create positive attitudes by linking positive cues to the promoted product (Kim, Allen, and Kardes 1996). The influence of positive responses to advertising on attitudes is often explained through the basic principles of learning, in particular classical conditioning. Research supports the general premise that brand attitudes can be shaped through conditioning



154 Journal of Travel Research

procedures (Allen and Janiszewski 1989; Kim, Allen, and Kardes 1996; Shimp, Stuart, and Engle 1991; Stuart, Shimp, and Engle 1987). A review of the marketing literature clearly reveals the extent of the discipline’s acceptance of the classical conditioning theory, which predicts that positive responses elicited by an advertisement will transfer to the advertised destination over repeated exposures to the ad (Smith, Feinberg, and Burns 1998). The question that arises at this juncture is which type of advertising, generic or iconic, would be more effective in stimulating the classical conditioning process and generating positive attitudes toward the destination. The literature suggests that generic advertising’s attempts to link the destination to positive cues will most likely be hindered by an effect called blocking (McSweeney and Bierley 1984). Blocking is based on the idea that only a certain amount of conditioning can be sustained by a given stimulus. Blocking occurs when prior experience with one stimulus prevents later conditioning to a second stimulus. In other words, attempts at associating a destination with generic cues will be “blocked” because the destination is already associated with iconic cues. Therefore, iconic advertising is more likely to achieve the intended objective of eliciting a positive response as a function of the iconic advertisement’s depiction of easily recognizable, well-known, and attractive images that reinforce, enhance, or simply recall consumers’ previously held perceptions about the destination (Kim, Allen, and Kardes 1996). As such, it would seem reasonable to expect that message receivers exposed to unsolicited exposures would react more favorably to iconic advertising than to generic advertising. Hence our hypothesis, influenced by the above discussion of the literature, is as follows: “generic advertising,” for example, as utilized by the state of South Carolina’s “It’s time” campaign, is not, from a marketing perspective, the most effective use of an STO’s or NTO’s limited advertising budget, with the term most effective narrowly defined as it relates to destination image, a construct measured by a three-item scale described in the section that follows.

Research Method

Research was conducted utilizing a sample of students from a Southern U.S. university who participated in an approximately 10- to 15-minute experiment (N = 307). Participation was rewarded by extra credit in their introductory marketing course. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six treatment groups based on the order in which they visited the testing center. Members of each treatment group were provided six-page colored

“magazines” developed by the authors. All “magazines,” identical with the exception of a page 5 stimulus advertisement discussed below, included two short travel-related stories, some advertisements for non-travel-related products, and a travel cartoon. The following reasons led to the use of a “magazine” in the experiment. First was to make exposure to the stimulus advertisement as realistic as possible, as destination advertisements are commonly published in travel and tourism magazines. Second was the desire to prevent participants from guessing the specific research intent as participants were instructed to browse the “magazine” as they would a regular magazine and thus had no reason to focus on any specific content. When time expired, participants exchanged their “magazine” for a four-page questionnaire, after completion of which they were debriefed, thanked for their participation, and dismissed.

Version 1 of the magazine contained a page 5 adver-tisement for the grand Canyon, with the tagline, “The grand Canyon, Arizona. The Experience is Priceless.” Version 2 replaced the grand Canyon photo with an attractive lake and mountain scene fictitiously labeled Lake Limo, Arizona, with the same “The Experience is Priceless” tagline. Version 3 featured Mount Rushmore, South Dakota, while version 4 utilized the same lake and mountain scene as version 2, this time labeled Lake Limo, South Dakota, both again with the “The Experience is Priceless” tagline. Version 5 of the magazine, created for the experiment’s two control groups, replaced the page 5 stimulus advertisement with an additional travel cartoon. While the two control groups read the same “magazine,” they completed different survey forms, one with questions related to Arizona, the other with questions related to South Dakota.

While the use of real “iconic” versus fictitious “generic” destinations was an issue of consideration, it was determined that such an approach was best as it provided both test states with identical “generic” alternatives and thus eliminated the potential for these not being of equal attractiveness. Furthermore, while Lake Limo was ficti-tious, it was arguably no more obscure than the generally unknown destinations portrayed in many generic adver-tisements, to include those utilized by SCPRT that spurred this research.

The selection of Arizona and South Dakota as test states was based on the following criteria:

1. Both are states that relatively few participants would have previously visited. This was important as it has often been reported that the influence of prior visitation results in altered attitudes (e.g., McKercher and Wong 2004). Those respondents




who had visited the state advertised in their “maga-zine” were eliminated from the sample.

2. Both Arizona and South Dakota are states with “iconic” tourist attractions that dominate their state’s image. (A total of 51 students not otherwise involved in this research were asked to identify, unaided, the photos of Mt. Rushmore and the grand Canyon used in the study. The 51 participants provided 101 of 102 correct answers, confirming that the “iconic” destinations from the two tested states were in fact familiar to the participants.)

3. The two states were relatively disparate from an overall tourism attractiveness perspective. A Fielding travel guide, Vacation Places Rated (Plog 1995), “rated” the 50 U.S. states as vacation desti-nations. The guidebook awarded four stars to Arizona and two stars to South Dakota. An addi-tional test of 60 other students was conducted to validate that the two selected states were, in the minds of the students, at opposite ends of the tour-ism attractiveness spectrum. When asked to rank order the attractiveness of a selection of nine Mountain West and Southwest states, Arizona ranked first and South Dakota last. Having two states included in the experiment, one with rela-tively strong appeal, the other generally lacking such appeal, enhanced robustness of the study.

The key dependent variable measured by the survey instrument was destination image of the respondent’s test state (Arizona or South Dakota), an issue of significance to destination marketers for, as noted previously, a favor-able image is an important precursor to destination selec-tion (e.g., Alhemoud and Armstrong 1996; Woodside and Lysonski 1989). The construct was measured using a parsimonious scale that combined three common market-ing measures of consumer attitude and behavioral intent—purchase interest, purchase proclivity, and willingness to recommend to others. (Hospitality and tourism authors who have utilized variations of these measures include Castro, Armaio, and Ruiz [2007], Chen and Tsai [2007], Litvin and goh [2002], Milman and Pizam [1995], and Woodside and Sherrell [1977], among numerous others.)

The questions employed were as follows:

Based on the ad about the state of Arizona [or South Dakota] that you saw in the booklet . . .

1. On a scale of 1 = not interested at all to 7 = extremely interested, how interested would you be in visiting Arizona [or South Dakota] as a tourist destination in the next 5 years?

2. On a scale of 1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely, how likely would you be to visit the state of Arizona [or South Dakota] as a tourist destination in the next 5 years?

3. On a scale of 1 = definitely not recommend and 7 = definitely recommend, how likely are you to recom-mend the state of Arizona [or South Dakota] as a tourist destination to family and friends?

The higher the combined score for the above three ques-tions, the more favorable the destination image. A strong Cronbach’s alpha of .904 indicated that the three-question set measured the same construct. Principal axis factor- ing found the results to have been unidimensional (Eigenvalue = 2.522). (These statistical tests were sug-gested by Churchill [1979] to ensure scale validity.)

Demographic and travel-related questions were also asked. As noted above, those participants who had visited their tested destination within the previous five years were eliminated from the sample (n = 14). Also eliminated were those who indicated that they had not traveled for vacation purposes within a five-year time period (n = 10). An additional question measured advertisement awareness. Those with no recollection of the Arizona or South Dakota stimulus advertisement in their “magazine” were also eliminated from the sample (n = 42). This resulted in a total of 241 usable questionnaires, composed of 45 to 50 respondents for each of the four test groups and 25 and 29 participants in the two control groups. Females composed 58% of the sample. Participants were predominantly single (76%) with a mean age of 24 years (SD = 7). Third-year students (juniors) were dominant, representing 67% of the sample, 24% were final-year (senior) students, with the remaining respondents in their second year of study (sophomores). Statistical tests indicated no significant differences between the six treatment groups as they related to these descriptive variables. While the use of student samples leaves research open to greater scrutiny, their use was deemed adequate for the current study as the basic intent was to obtain information on the participants’ reaction to various advertising approaches rather than to provide point and interval estimates of population parameters (Calder, Phillips, and Tybout 1981). This issue is further discussed in the Limitations and Future Research section.

Research Findings

Survey responses from each of the six groups were analyzed based on the three-item destination image




scale. The analysis confirmed expectations. Participants exposed to advertisements featuring their test state’s iconic tourist attraction (grand Canyon or Mount Rushmore) reported significantly more favorable images toward their test state (Arizona or South Dakota) than did respondents exposed to the generic advertisement. Though hypothesized, this was an interesting finding. The participants were university students who were, as noted above, aware of the grand Canyon and Mt. Rushmore. Their reading a “magazine” and seeing an advertisement that featured these destinations exposed them to nothing new or unexpected.

Yet these advertisements, intended simply to rein-force the participant’s “organic” (gunn 1997) knowledge, significantly affected their destination image. The findings, as noted in Table 1, are as follows: participants in the grand Canyon group (group 2) had an overall destination image score for the state of Arizona of 4.0 (SD = 1.7; potential range of low of 1 to high of 7) versus 3.3 (SD = 1.6; t = –2.067, p = .042) for participants in the Lake Limo, Arizona, group (group 1). Similarly, for the “less attractive” tourism state of South Dakota, participants whose advertisement featured Mount Rushmore (group 4) rated the state 3.2 (SD = 1.4) versus 2.4 (SD = 1.4; t = –2.509, p = .014) for those whose “magazine” included the generic advertisement (group 3). Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the control groups (groups 5 and 6), not exposed to either destination's promotional material, had destination image scores for Arizona of 2.5 (SD = 1.5) and South Dakota of 2.3 (SD = 1.5). For Arizona, the differences between the control group and both the “generic” and “iconic” treatment groups were significant (t = 2.113, p = .038; t = 3.670, p = .000). For South Dakota, the difference between the control group and the “iconic” advertisement treatment group was significant

(t = –2.558, p = .013), while the “generic” advertisement had no significant effect on participants’ pretest destination image (t = –0.378, p = .707). The control group results are important from a face validity perspective as they confirm that the destination advertisements utilized in the study were neutral to positive, and certainly not negative, in the messages they sent.

The second step of analysis entailed a more detailed look at the dependent variables (please see Table 2) with the two exposure groups for each destination compared based on the three component measures, that is, interest to visit, likelihood to visit, and likelihood to recommend. Five of the six comparisons resulted in statistically significant differences (the exception being “likelihood to visit” for participants exposed to the South Dakota “generic” advertisement versus the Mt. Rushmore advertisement). For each of these five comparisons, respondents exposed to the “iconic” advertisement gave their tested state a significantly higher rating than did participants exposed to the “generic” advertisement.

Discussion

To be effective, destination advertising should seize attention, awaken interest, and arouse a desire to purchase (Echtner and Ritchie 1993). These objectives can be achieved if destination advertising creates a favorable image that ultimately translates into visitation (e.g., Alhemoud and Armstrong 1996; Woodside and Lysonski 1989). Classical conditioning theory and the associated blocking phenomenon suggest that iconic advertising would be more effective at achieving these objectives than generic advertising. The findings of this study confirm the theory’s prediction and strongly suggest that

Table 1 Destination Image, Composite Scores

group Advertisement Exposure M SD t-Test Results p

1. (n = 49) Arizona—Lake Limo 3.3 1.6 2. (n = 46) Arizona—grand Canyon 4.0 1.7 1 vs. 2, t = –2.067 .042a

3. (n = 47) South Dakota—Lake Limo 2.4 1.4 4. (n = 45) South Dakota—Mt. Rushmore 3.2 1.4 3 vs. 4, t = –2.509 .014a

5. (n = 25) Arizona—Control groupb 2.5 1.5 5 vs. 1, t = 2.113 .038a

5 vs. 2, t = 3.670 .000a

6. (n = 29) South Dakota—Control groupb 2.3 1.5 6 vs. 3, t = –0.378 .707 6 vs. 4, t = –2.558 .013a

Note: Based on three-item destination image scale discussed in the research method section of the article. Mean reported is mean of the three responses, with a potential range from 1 to 7, with the higher the score the more favorable the image of the destination.a. t-test equality of means difference (two-tailed) between groups is significant at p = .100.b. Control groups were provided “magazines” with no state advertisements.




STOs or NTOs interested in enhancing their image and thus promoting tourist visitation numbers are best served, from a strict marketing perspective, by promoting their destination’s well-known and dominant “iconic” tourism assets. And while there is no arguing that some places are simply more attractive tourism destinations than are others, having what gunn (1997, p. 51) referred to as “magnetism,” this research suggests that each locale should identify, develop, promote, and market its “magnetic” attractions. Thus, as potential tourists are as likely to know that Boston and Cape Cod are in Massachusetts as they are to know that the grand Canyon is in Arizona, the suggestion is that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts should feature these destinations in its promotional materials, for doing so likely will attract more visitors than will promoting Massachusetts generically via featuring the state’s less familiar and/or less prominent attractions.

Returning to the “It’s time” campaign that spurred this research, South Carolina’s decision to promote its lesser-known corners versus its well-known coastal attractions seems not to have been the state’s most effective marketing strategy option. It must be acknowledged, however, that one cannot simply ignore the realities of politics, as the decision to promote attractions statewide was likely based on a perceived need for a geographically equitable distribution of resources. Funding for SCPRT, as is the case for most STOs, is principally derived from accommodation tax revenues, and while South Carolina’s dominant tourist destinations are concentrated along the coast, hotel guests are dispersed statewide, and a sizeable percentage of tourism tax dollars originate from such nonvacation travel as when a parent visits his or her child at Clemson University, a vendor makes a sales call at the

BMW assembly plant in greer, or a lobbyist spends the night in the capital city of Columbia. As all of these visits contribute to the accommodation tax revenue pool, is it not reasonable that these communities would lobby for a pro rata reinvestment of the tax funds they generate?

The distribution of tax dollars is a well-studied issue, generally discussed in terms of tax spillover costs and tax spillover benefits (Boehne 1969), and it is easy to appreciate both sides of the argument. SCPRT, from a marketing perspective, should be pursuing the most effective use of its limited tourism promotional dollars, however the measure may be defined, while contributing communities expect that their share of tax dollars sent to Columbia will find their way back to the source. South Carolina is certainly not alone in facing such a conflict, which ought to make this research of interest to readers regardless of locale. Turn the pages of any travel magazine and it is evident that many states take a “spread the wealth,” “generic” approach to their advertising. Several examples from 2006 National Geographic Traveler include the following: Missouri advertising that features attractive but “could be anywhere” nature and foliage scenes versus the St. Louis gateway Arch or Branson’s country and western music appeal; Maine’s collage of a frolicking whale, a young couple paddling a canoe on an unidentified lake, and fields of wild blueberries—with no specific mention of Bar Harbor or Arcadia National Park, the state’s dominant attractions; and Colorado advertisements, similar in style and approach to the “It’s time” campaign, that feature unidentified mountain and vineyard scenes rather than recognizable images of Pikes Peak or Rocky Mountain National Park. These states have made the same

Table 2 Test Scores by Variable

Lake Limo, grand Canyon, Arizona (n = 49) Arizona (n = 46)

Ma SD Ma SD t-Test Results p

Interest to visit 3.7 1.8 4.4 1.8 –2.017 .047b

Likelihood to visit 3.0 1.7 3.7 2.0 –1.777 .079b

Would recommend 3.1 1.6 3.7 1.7 –2.203 .046b

Lake Limo, Mt. Rushmore, South Dakota (n = 47) South Dakota (n = 45)

Interest to visit 2.5 1.7 3.7 1.6 –3.334 .001b

Likelihood to visit 2.5 1.8 2.8 1.7 –0.732 .466Would recommend 2.3 1.5 3.1 1.4 –2.794 .006b

a. Responses ranged from 1 to 7, with the higher the score the more favorable the response.b. t-test equality of means difference (two-tailed) between groups is significant at p = .100.




destination marketing decision as has South Carolina—to promote a holistic state image rather than the promotion of their well-known and identifiable “iconic” attractions. These allocation of promotional funds away from the “core” to the less well-known “peripherality” (Brown and Hall’s [2000] terms) make political sense but, from an advertising effectiveness perspective, may not be the most prudent of approaches.

It is interesting to note that South Carolina governor Mark Sanford (cited in Stock 2006, p. 12B), defending his budgetary allocation to SCPRT, stated, “Whether it’s tourism or manufacturing, we’ve always believed that when it comes to economic development, we have to invest our limited dollars in places where they’ll have the greatest impact.” This comment was made specifically in defense of significant new funds earmarked for tourism advertising, which he felt to be a good investment for the state. These findings suggest, however, that the “It’s time” campaign created by SCPRT with these additional funds, with their emphasis on the promotion of secondary destinations, likely fell short of its potential to deliver to the governor the impact he was hoping to achieve.

Furthermore, while a state’s secondary destination areas could argue that they deserve to be highlighted, the unintended consequences of doing so may cause these locales more harm than good. Again using the “It’s time” campaign as an example, while inevitably some potential tourists saw an SCPRT advertisement featuring a secondary destination and decided on a South Carolina vacation specifically to visit that destination, this research suggests that such success was likely accomplished at the expense of attracting a still larger number of potential visitors to the state. Most tourists seek multiple destinations during their travels (Oppermann 1992), and it is a reasonable assumption that a percentage of these incremental visitors would have found their way to the state’s secondary or tertiary noncoastal attractions during the course of their visit . . . but only if motivated to vacation in South Carolina in the first place. The same argument would hold for a visitor to South Dakota, attracted by an advertisement that featured Mount Rushmore, who then opts to extend his or her vacation to visit the cross-state attraction the Badlands. This visitor is likely to include a midstate stop in Mitchell to view its quirky Corn Palace. Would not Mitchell’s tourism interests thus be better served by advertisements featuring Mount Rushmore and/or the Badlands rather than Mitchell itself, a fun place to visit but not a destination with sufficient “magnetism” to generate a South Dakota vacation on its own?

The findings of this research echo Litvin et al.’s (2006) empirical study of accommodation tax dollar promo-tional expenditures by small and rural communities. These

authors noted that such locales were ill advised to invest in mass media destination advertising as they lacked the resources necessary to create the awareness level required for an effective campaign. Instead, it was suggested that a more successful strategy was the use of tourism promotional tax dollars to create festivals and events that provide visitors a special reason to visit. Consistent with this, it would seem more beneficial, again using South Carolina as example, that the state’s secondary destinations ask that a portion of the state’s tourism marketing funds be directed toward the support of their local events rather than their being featured in an SCPRT advertisement. If these events were promoted via inexpensive means such as inclusion on SCPRT tourist Web calendars and their brochures displayed at the state’s welcome centers, then visitors coming to the state’s coastal destinations would have reason to extend their stay to incorporate visits to such events as georgetown’s Wooden Boat Show, Columbia’s South Carolina State Fair, or Lauren’s Squealin’ on the Square Festival (SC Highways 2008). Such an approach seems far more beneficial to the locale than being featured in an advertisement likely to fail to bring visitors to the state in the first place.

Limitations and Future Research

There are limitations that readers should consider when evaluating this research. First, the experimental design focused solely on first-time visitors. The dynamics of repeat visitorship are notably different from those of first timers. For example, in a study of tourists to Charleston, South Carolina, a historic destination, Litvin (2007) found that first-time visitors most often visited the city’s historic and heritage assets, whereas repeat visitors were more likely to visit the beach or to play golf. These findings were consistent with those of McKercher and Wong (2004), who noted that first-time visitors want to discover a destination while repeat visitors are likely to engage in a limited set of actions that relate to shopping, dining, and spending time with friends. Understanding differences between first-time versus repeat visitors when promoting a destination is thus critically important. Appreciating the inappropriateness of combining these two segments into a single sample and lacking the resources to generate a sample large enough to study both, the decision was made to focus on those without personal travel experience to the test destination for this study. Extension of the current research to explore repeat visitors’ advertising responses would be a worthwhile future research endeavor. Furthermore, the fact that generic advertising’s impact on destination image for South Dakota (a destination with a




relatively weak image) was not statistically different from the control group’s destination image suggests interplay between type of advertising and existing destination image. It might be that iconic advertising plays a more impactful role when the destination enjoys an already existing favorable image. The present research could be extended by investigating the differential impact of iconic and generic advertising for “favorable” versus “unfavor-able” destinations.

The use of a student sample potentially limits generali-zability of the findings. The use of students for this research, however, was necessitated by the substantial sample size required to operationalize the experimental design utilized, which otherwise would not have been economically feasible. That said, while students do travel, their travel planning and travel patterns are not necessarily reflective of the broader population. However, as the research was not attempting to determine actual travel likelihood but rather participants’ reaction to advertising exposure, there is no reason to believe that students would have reacted in any significantly different manner than would have a nonstudent sample (please see Calder, Phillips, and Tybout 1981). Further testing with samples reflecting various populations would however enhance confidence regarding the generalizability of the findings.

We also acknowledge that the means of our dependent variables are relatively low, especially for participants exposed to South Dakota stimuli. However, as the purpose of this study was to compare different types of stimuli (“iconic” vs. “generic”), rather than assess stimuli effec-tiveness to affect destination image, we were less interested in the levels of means than the differences between means. Of course, before a destination places emphasis on the promotion of its “iconic” assets, research should be con-ducted to explore the likely effectiveness with the defined target market, as the tourism dynamics of each destination and every segment are uniquely different. For example, the students within this sample would likely be among the strata found at a lower rung of Pearce’s (1988) Travel Career Ladder. While some destinations target such tourists, others seek more sophisticated travelers. Such a difference points to the importance of understanding the dynamics of one’s destination before applying any new marketing strategy.

One final comment. It is not uncommon for states to run advertisement sequences featuring multiple destina-tions rather than utilizing the more focused approach tested herein. Analysis of the use of a multiple benefit–multiple cue approach versus a single benefit–single cue promotional strategy, an issue related to but beyond the

scope of the current research, would represent a worth-while future endeavor.

Conclusion

The fact that the promotion of “iconic” versus “generic” assets results in a more favorable image of the destination as a vacation choice, this study’s key finding, is important to any marketer with the responsibility for promoting a destination with multiple attractions. Such a finding supports the advice of Murphy and Murphy (2004, p. 292), who warn, “If governments shared their tourism resources equally among all their constituent groups and areas, they could effectively water-down the attractiveness of any single location and the tourist drawing potential of their overall area since the nexus of a must see destination would be lost.”

There is logic, however, for making an effort to disperse tourists across a broader range of destinations. Pearce (1990) identified the uneven distribution of tourism as an impediment to regional development and argued that stronger marketing of remote regions and the distribution of resources to regional authorities could help overcome an uneven distribution of wealth. Current “hot spots,” Pearce argued, often suffer from overdevelo pment and the resulting negative social and environmental impacts that come from an overreliance on tourism, while other regions are bypassed and are not in the posi tion to capitalize on tourism as a catalyst for development. Becken (2005) offered a similar observation, noting that while the geographic concentration of tourism around major tourist hubs may bring benefits to some, it also results in problems associated with the built, social, and biophysical environment. Furthermore, Saarinen noted (2006, p. 43), “Tourism can be a means of providing economic development in peripheral regions. . . . In the context of [a] core-periphery system, tourism can transfer wealth from the richer, urbanized areas to the poorer peripheral regions, which have often fallen below national averages on social and economic indicators related to well-being and quality of life.”

While not disputing the above, each argument is peripheral to the important question of advertising effectiveness. The current study, the first test of its kind noted in the literature, positively points to the “iconic” approach as an important ingredient for enhancing destination image and thus likely visitation. This does not imply that efforts should not be invested in increasing the spread of tourism wealth but, it is our opinion, that first must come the inducement of tourist visitation.




Once attracted to the destination by the “magnetism” of its featured “iconic” attractions, then efforts should be made to disperse visitors among various areas beyond the featured attractions. Efforts should likewise be invested by NTOs and STOs to encourage return visitation, at which time, the literature informs, guests are more willing to seek out areas beyond the main attractions that likely highlighted their initial visit, again dispersing the economic benefits of tourism.

As a final comment, the intent of the current article was to determine if the dispersion of advertising promotion across secondary destinations is an effective approach for a destination promotional organization. The conclusion reached (limited to first-time visitors) was that it does not seem to be and that “iconic” attractions deserve the attention their status has earned. This message should be of value to those marketers tasked with the responsibility of attracting tourists to their state, region, or country while inevitably faced with the political necessity of keeping constituents from all corners satisfied. Finding the fulcrum between the competing demands of advertising effective-ness and political expediency is indeed a difficult challenge. We hope these findings help.

References

Alhemoud, A. M., and E. g. Armstrong (1996). “Image of Tourism Attractions in Kuwait.” Journal of Travel Research, 34 (4): 76-80.

Allen, C. T., and C. Janiszewski (1989). “Assessing the Role of Contingency Awareness in Attitudinal Conditioning with Implications for Advertising Research.” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (February): 30-43.

Becken, S. (2005). “Towards Sustainable Tourism Transport: An Analysis of Coach Tourism in New Zealand.” Tourism Geographies, 7 (1): 23-42.

Boehne, E. g. (1969). “The Partial Symmetry of Benefit and Cost Spillovers and Allocative Efficiency in a Federal System.” Canadian Journal of Economics, 2 (3): 461-62.

Bowie, D., and F. Buttle (2004). Hospitality Marketing, an Introduction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Brown, F., and D. Hall (2000). Tourism in Peripheral Areas. Buffalo, NY: Channel View.

Calder, B. J., L. W. Phillips, and A. M. Tybout (1981). “Designing Research for Applications.” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (September): 197-207.

Castro, C. B., E. M. Armaio, and D. M. Ruiz (2007). “The Influence of Market Heterogeneity on the Relationship Between a Destina-tion’s Image and Tourists’ Future Behaviour.” Tourism Management, 28 (1): 175-87.

Chen, C. F., and D. Tsai (2007). “How Destination Image and Evaluative Factors Affect Behavioral Intentions?” Tourism Management, 28 (4): 1115-22.

Churchill, g. A. (1979). “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs.” Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February): 64-73.

Dadgostar, B., and R. M. Isotalo (1992). “Factors Affecting Time Spent by Near-home Tourists in City Destinations.” Journal of Travel Research, 31 (2): 34-39.

Echtner, C. M., and J. R. B. Ritchie (1993). “The Measurement of Destination Image: An Empirical Assessment.” Journal of Travel Research, 31 (4): 3-13.

gartner, W. C. (1996). Tourism Development, Principles, Processes and Policies. New York: Van Norstrand Reinhold.

gunn, C. A. (1997). Vacationscape. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Judd, D. R., and S. S. Fainstein (1999). The Tourist City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kim, J., C. T. Allen, and F. R. Kardes (1996). “An Investigation of the Mediational Mechanisms Underlying Attitudinal Conditioning.” Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (3): 318-29.

Kolb, B. M. (2006). Tourism Marketing for Cities and Towns. Amsterdam: Butterworth Heinemann.

Kotler, P., D. H. Haider, and I. Rein (1993). Marketing Places, Attracting Investment, Industry and Tourism to Cities, States and Nations. New York: Free Press.

Litvin, S. W. (2007). “Marketing Visitor Attractions: A Segmentation Study.” International Journal of Tourism Research, 9 (1): 9-19.

Litvin, S. W., J. C. Crotts, C. Blackwell, and A. Styles (2006). “Expenditures of Accommodations Tax Revenue: A South Carolina Study.” Journal of Travel Research, 45 (6): 150-57.

Litvin, S. W., and H. K. goh (2002). “Self-image Congruity: A Valid Tourism Theory?” Tourism Management, 23 (1): 81-83.

McKercher, B., and D. Y. Y. Wong (2004). “Understanding Tourism Behavior: Examining the Combined Effects of Prior Visitation History and Destination Status.” Journal of Travel Research, 43 (2): 171-79.

McSweeney, F. K., and C. Bierley (1984). “Recent Developments in Classical Conditioning.” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (2): 619-31.

Middleton, V. T. C. (2001). Marketing in Travel and Tourism. Oxford, UK: Butterworth Heinemann.

Milman, A., and A. Pizam (1995). “The Role of Awareness and Familiarity with a Destination: The Central Florida Case.” Journal of Tourism Research, 33 (3): 21-27.

Murphy, P. E., and A. E. Murphy (2004). Strategic Management for Tourism Communities: Bridging the Gaps. Buffalo, NY: Channel View.

Oppermann, M. (1992). “Intranational Tourist Flows in Malaysia.” Annals of Tourism Research, 19: 482-500.

Pearce, D. (1990). “Tourism, the Regions and Restructuring in New Zealand.” Journal of Tourism Studies, 1 (2): 33-42.

Pearce, P. L. (1988). The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Settings. Heidelberg, germany: Springer Verlag.

Plog, S. C. (1995). Vacation Places Rated. Redondo Beach, CA: Fielding Worldwide.

Richardson, J., and J. Cohen (1993). “State Slogans: The Case of the Missing USP.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2 (2-3): 91-109.

Saarinen, J. (2006). “Tourism in Peripheries: The Role of Tourism in Regional Development in Northern Finland.” In Tourism in Peripheries: Perspectives from the Far North and South, edited by D. Miller. Wallingford, UK: CABI, pp. 41-52.

SC Highways (2008). Calendar of Events. http://www.sciway.net/calendar/october.html.

Sheehan, L., J. R. B. Ritchie, and S. Hudson (2007). “The Destination Promotion Triad: Understanding Asymmetric Stakeholder




Interdependencies Among the City, Hotels, and DMO.” Journal of Travel Research, 46 (1): 64-74.

Shimp, T. A., E. W. Stuart, and R. W. Engle (1991). “A Program of Classical Conditioning Experiments Testing Variations in the Conditioned Stimulus and Context.” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (1): 1-12.

Smith, P. W., R. A. Feinberg, and D. J. Burns (1998). “An Examination of Classical Conditioning Principles in an Ecologically Valid Advertising Context.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6 (1): 63-72.

Stock, K. (2006). “Sanford Seeks Bigger Bucks for Tourism.” Post and Courier (Charleston, SC). December 29, 9B, 12B.

Stuart, E. W., T. A. Shimp, and R. W. Engle (1987). “Classical Conditioning of Consumer Attitudes: Four Experiments in an Advertising Context.” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (3): 334-49.

Um, S., and J. Crompton (1990). “Attitude Determinants in Tourism Destination Choice.” Annals of Tourism Research, 17: 432-48.

Voase, R. (1999). “Consuming Tourist Sites/sights: A Note on York.” Leisure Studies, 18 (4): 289-96.

Woodside, A. g., and S. Lysonski (1989). “A general Model of Travel Destination Choice.” Journal of Travel Research, 27 (4): 8-14.

Woodside, A. g., and D. Sherrell (1977). “Traveler Evoked Set, and Inert Sets of Vacation Destinations.” Journal of Travel Research, 16: 14-18.

Stephen W. Litvin is a professor in the department of hospi-tality and tourism management in the School of Business & Economics of the College of Charleston.

Nacef Mouri is an assistant professor of marketing in the School of Management, george Mason University.



a comparative study of the use of “iconic” versus “generic” advertising images for...

Education