Andronikidis, Andreas

Bellou, Victoria

Stylos, Nikolaos

Vassiliadis, Chris A.

English

Explore Bristol Research

                          Andronikidis, A., Bellou, V., Stylos, N., & Vassiliadis, C. A. (2020).Commentary: Differences of Perceived Image Generated through theWeb Site: Empirical Evidence Obtained in Spanish Destinations.Frontiers in Psychology, 11, [735].https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00735Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordLicense (if available):CC BYLink to published version (if available):10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00735Link to publication record in Explore Bristol ResearchPDF-documentThis is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Frontiers Media athttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00735/full. Please refer to any applicable terms of use ofthe publisher.University of Bristol - Explore Bristol ResearchGeneral rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only thepublished version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available:http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/GENERAL COMMENTARYpublished: 28 April 2020doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00735Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 April 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 735Edited by:Ana Jiménez-Zarco,Open University of Catalonia, SpainReviewed by:Ana Isabel Muro,University of Castilla LaMancha, Spain*Correspondence:Nikolaos Stylosn.stylos@bristol.ac.ukSpecialty section:This article was submitted toOrganizational Psychology,a section of the journalFrontiers in PsychologyReceived: 12 December 2019Accepted: 25 March 2020Published: 28 April 2020Citation:Andronikidis A, Bellou V, Stylos N andVassiliadis CA (2020) Differences ofPerceived Image Generated throughthe Web Site: Empirical EvidenceObtained in Spanish Destinations.Front. Psychol. 11:735.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00735Commentary: Differences ofPerceived Image Generated throughthe Web Site: Empirical EvidenceObtained in Spanish DestinationsAndreas Andronikidis 1, Victoria Bellou 2, Nikolaos Stylos 3* and Chris A. Vassiliadis 11Department of Business Administration, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2Department of Economics,University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece, 3 School of Economics, Finance and Management, University of Bristol, Bristol,United KingdomKeywords: destination marketing, tourism, perceived images, online content, DMOsA Commentary onDifferences of Perceived Image Generated through theWeb Site: Empirical Evidence Obtainedin Spanish Destinationsby Blazquez-Resino, J. J., Muro-Rodriguez, A. I., and Perez-Jimenez, I. R. (2016). Front. Psychol.7:1861. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01861As the investigation of “perceived destination images” and “promotional Web Pages” have beenconsistent themes in the work of Blazquez-Resino and his colleugues, this commentary is based onthe key aspect that using online content posted by DMOs is an important generator of destinationimages. Based on the view that a destination image is dependent on context, the authors havediscussed the impact of analyzing differences of “perceived destination image effects” on thesatisfaction and intentions of potential visitors (Blazquez-Resino et al., 2016).At the beginning of their study, the authors pointed out the leading strategic role that the tourismindustry plays in the economic growth and development of numerous countries worldwide. Thisholds true for Europe as well, where the tourism industry accounts for a substantial contributionto the national economies of the countries across the continent. According to the World Travel& Tourism Council, in 2018, tourism supported 37.4 million jobs and made nearly 2,144 billionUSD in contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) or 9.9% of total European GDP (WorldTravel Tourism Council, 2019). These GDP figures are expected to increase by 2.2% per annum torepresent 10.7% of GDP in 2028, a fact that is indicative of the competitive, specialized, and rapidlyevolving commercial nature of the tourism industry. It also seems that travel and tourism can befundamental to the recovery of countries that were hit hard by the recession and the Eurozone crisis,including Greece, Portugal, and Spain. Under these circumstances, tourism sector practitionersare urged to use all available tools and resources in their arsenal to successfully elaborate on thequestions of “why” and “how” tourist destinations have an appeal to individuals; and, in turn,they should effectively implement this information to work on their strategies to attract morevisitors. Given the importance of tourism to the economic growth of Spain, Blazquez-Resinoet al. have investigated in their paper how the Internet could be used as a valuable instrumentfor marketers to influence future consumer behaviors and attract visitors to specific populartouristic destinations in Spain (Blazquez-Resino et al., 2016). Specifically, they have empiricallyexamined how the information offered by promotional travel websites—Destination MarketingOrganizations (DMOs)—shapes individuals’ perceived destination image (PDI), which in turnaffects their consumer choices via the satisfaction obtained from their internet search results.Andronikidis et al. Commentary: Websites-Generated Destination ImagesTo build up their research hypotheses, the authors have usedthe internet as the main source of information. They particularlyfocused on the web pages and the internet content of destinationmarketing organizations. This seems to be an intriguing choicebecause the distinctive nature of DMOs’ websites separates themfrom other internet content such as travel blogs, commercial andreservation websites, and consumer empowerment sites. Morespecifically, DMOs (a) are non-profit entities that organize andprovide tourism information for a given geographic area and(b) coordinate the local private and public tourism authoritiesto develop a unique image of the area and lead the overalllocal tourism industry (Molinillo et al., 2018). This secondcharacteristic of DMOs shows a potential disadvantage of theircorresponding websites over other sources of digital information:the different interests and objectives of the different stakeholdersinvolved (both private and public) must ultimately convergeto support the marketed image, a fact that is reflected inthe quantity, quality, and sophistication of the DMO websitescontent. The last one could well be the reason for DMO’s digitalmarketing campaigns being challenged by the appearance andpopularity of social media applications as well as by the user-generated content (Xiang and Gretzel, 2010; Zeng and Gerritsen,2014). The evolution of Web 2.0 at the beginning of 2000s, withits user-centric orientation (Anderson, 2016), gave rise to theemergence of travel-related internet content, which is createdby individuals and is often termed as tourist generated content(Akehurst, 2009). With the advent of this type of user-generatedcontent, DMOs could not be seen anymore as themost importantsources of information search regarding travel destinations. Infact, perceived destination image can be modified by both theinformation obtained through the official DMO’s web-basedcommunication channels (i.e., websites) and the electronic wordofmouth (eWOM), which is facilitated by user-generated content(Reza Jalilvand and Samiei, 2012). This way, potential visitorsare exposed to two somehow differing streams of digital content;on one hand, DMOs could provide more accurate informationon destination location and accessibility, attractive products,service offerings, and community support (Bornhorst et al.,2010). This information is expected to be less biased and ofincreased reliability and value for consumer choices. At the sametime, it could suffer from the need for convergence of all of thedifferent interests and objectives of the stakeholders involvedwhich makes it less diverse. On the other hand, the content (e.g.,comments, stories, and experiences) of social media platforms,travel blogs, commercial and reservation websites, and consumerempowerment sites are more personal and varied. Potentialvisitors may identify more easily with the opinions stated and thestories told (Akehurst, 2009), but these may include both positiveand some less favorable comments of questionable credibilityand trustworthiness about touristic destinations (Ayeh et al.,2013). The above discussion has highlighted the complexitybehind the mechanisms through which present-day tourists formperceptions of travel destinations and offers an interesting avenuefor research that might further extend the work of Blazquez-Resino et al.. For example, future research may explore howcollective memory of differences in promotional web pages andthe developed destination image in the mind of potential visitorscan be explored using social media data to develop sustainabletravel destinations. Furthermore, future scholarly efforts may bedirected toward a comparison between the strength of DMOs’and eWOM’s differing perspectives (i.e., in terms of digitalcontent) in formulating the online visitors’ perceived destinationimages and associated effects on their consumer choices. Thisavenue of investigation could be further expanded to includethe introduction of and effects emerging from the usage ofpopular social media platforms by DMOs (e.g., Facebook, Twitter,Instagram, and YouTube), which are used as customer servicesand marketing tools, thus responding to relevant calls fromscholars such as Hays et al. (2013). Thus far, there has beenlittle attempt to examine the implementation of social media inDMOs’ communication and overall marketing strategies sincethe majority of studies on social media in the tourism area areconsumer-centric. These are mainly focus on travelers’ use ofsocial media, though there are a few notable exceptions, e.g.,Bigné et al. (2019) and Uşakli et al. (2019).Overall, we do support the position of Blazquez-Resinoand his colleagues in relation to the ability of DMO’s digitalweb-based content to form a favorable image that consumershave on a destination, which would ultimately influence theirfuture consumer behavior. However, it can only be part ofthe broader picture, where eWOM and social media aretreated as significant resources of digital interaction, having thepotential to greatly shape future consumer behaviors too, assuggested by Benckendorff et al. (2019). Besides, identifyingand understanding the complexities arising by the usage of theavailable web-based tools (i.e., webpages, eWOM, and socialmedia) is crucial for DMOs in the development of efficientmarketing strategies and customer services to motivate andattract individuals from certain target groups of visitors (Katsoniand Venetsanopoulou, 2013; Oliveira and Panyik, 2015). Thiscontemporary tourism context needs to be seen through thelens of wide mobility and the latest developments arisingfrom Web 3.0 architecture, as Ambient Intelligence (AmI)extracts meaning from the way tourists interact with the digitalecosystem (Buhalis, 2019).AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSAll authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectualcontribution to the work, and approved it for publication.REFERENCESAkehurst, G. (2009). User-generated content: the use of blogs fortourism organizations and tourism consumers. Serv. Bus. 3, 51–61.doi: 10.1007/s11628-008-0054-2Anderson, P. (2016).Web 2.0 and Beyond: Principles and Technologies. New York,NY: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Ayeh, J. K., Au, N., and Law, R. (2013). “Do we believe in TripAdvisor?” examiningcredibility perceptions and online travelers’ attitude toward using user-generated content. J. Travel Res. 52, 437–452. doi: 10.1177/0047287512475217Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 April 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 735Andronikidis et al. Commentary: Websites-Generated Destination ImagesBenckendorff, P. J., Xiang, Z., and Sheldon, P. J. (2019). Tourism InformationTechnology. Oxfordshire: Cabi, 375.Bigné, E., Oltra, E., and Andreu, L. (2019). Harnessing stakeholder input onTwitter: a case study of short breaks in Spanish tourist cities. Tour. Manage.71, 490–503. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.10.013Blazquez-Resino, J. J., Muro-Rodriguez, A. I., and Perez-Jimenez, I. R.(2016). Differences of perceived image generated through the web site:empirical evidence obtained in Spanish destinations. Front. Psychol. 7:1861.doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01861Bornhorst, T., Ritchie, J. B., and Sheehan, L. (2010). Determinants of tourismsuccess for DMOs & destinations: an empirical examination of stakeholders’perspectives. Tour. Manage. 31, 572–589. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.06.008Buhalis, D. (2019). Technology in tourism-from information communicationtechnologies to eTourism and smart tourism towards ambientintelligence tourism: a perspective article. Tour. Rev. 75, 267–272.doi: 10.1108/TR-06-2019-0258Hays, S., Page, S. J., and Buhalis, D. (2013). Social media as a destination marketingtool: its use by national tourism organisations. Curr. Issues Tour. 16, 211–239.doi: 10.1080/13683500.2012.662215Katsoni, V., and Venetsanopoulou, M. (2013). Use of innovation systems for aneffective tourism marketing development strategy. E J. Sci. Technol. 8, 33–40.doi: 10.18780/e-jst.v8i5.858Molinillo, S., Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Anaya-Sánchez, R., and Buhalis, D. (2018).DMO online platforms: image and intention to visit. Tour. Manage. 65,116–130. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2017.09.021Oliveira, E., and Panyik, E. (2015). Content, context and co-creation: digitalchallenges in destination branding with references to Portugal as atourist destination. J. Vacat. Market. 21, 53–74. doi: 10.1177/1356766714544235Reza Jalilvand, M., and Samiei, N. (2012). The impact of electronic word of mouthon a tourism destination choice: testing the theory of planned behavior (TPB).Intern. Res. 22, 591–612. doi: 10.1108/10662241211271563Uşakli, A., Koç, B., and Sönmez, S. (2019). “Social media usage among topEuropean DMOs,” in Tourist Destination Management, eds N. Kozak, and M.Kozak (Cham: Springer), 1–14.World Travel and Tourism Council (2019). Travel & Tourism Economic Impact2019 Europe. Available online at: http://www.wttc.org (accessed January 25,2020)Xiang, Z., and Gretzel, U. (2010). Role of social media in online travel informationsearch. Tour. Manage. 31, 179–188. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.016Zeng, B., and Gerritsen, R. (2014). What do we know about socialmedia in tourism? A review. Tour. Manage. Perspect. 10, 27–36.doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2014.01.001Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in theabsence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as apotential conflict of interest.Copyright © 2020 Andronikidis, Bellou, Stylos and Vassiliadis. This is an open-accessarticle distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCBY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, providedthe original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the originalpublication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with theseterms.Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 April 2020 | Volume 11 | Article 735

Commentary: Differences of Perceived Image Generated through the Web Site:Empirical Evidence Obtained in Spanish Destinations

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/244903709/fpsyg_11_00735.pdf

Commentary: Differences of Perceived Image Generated through the Web Site:Empirical Evidence Obtained in Spanish Destinations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Explore Bristol Research