Content uploaded by Ovidiu I. Moisescu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ovidiu I. Moisescu on Oct 21, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
NEGOTIA
4/2010
ANUL LV 2010
S T U D I A
UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI
NEGOTIA
4
Desktop Editing Office: 51
ST
B.P. Hasdeu, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, Phone + 40 264-40.53.52
CUPRINS – CONTENT – SOMMAIRE – INHALT
SUZANA MARKOVIĆ, SANJA RASPOR, Investigating the Perceived Service
Quality in Croatian Restaurant Industry Using Dineserv Model ...........................5
MEDET YOLAL, Blooming Tulip: A Decade of Turkish Tourism ......................15
CARMEN BĂBĂIłĂ, ANDREIA ISPAS, RALUCA FLORENTINA GHENESCU,
ALEXANDRA HĂLĂLĂU, E-Tourism – An Important Element Between
Hotel and Travel Agency Professional Relationship........................................25
IULIANA POP, ANDREEA MARIN- PANTELESCU, Analyzing the Changes
in Reasons for Travel of the Romanian Tourists ..............................................35
ALEXANDRA ZBUCHEA, MIHAELA DINU, Romanian Students as Cultural
Tourists .............................................................................................................43
ADINA LETIłIA NEGRUŞA, OANA ADRIANA GICĂ, CARMEN MARIA
GUł, Demand Influence on Tourist Accommodation Capacity Development.....53
OVIDIU I. MOISESCU, An Empirical Investigation of Romania's Country
Brand as Tourism Destination................................................................................67
CRISTINA BALINT, MIHAELA TUTUNEA, The Online Presence of the
Hotel Units: Comparative Study Between Cluj-Napoca and Bucharest...........77
ALEXANDRA URCAN, SMARANDA COSMA, Benchmarking Elements for
Cluj-Napoca Hotel Industry..............................................................................85
MIHAI FLORIN TALPOS, Modern Solutions for Online Promotion of
Tourism Offers................................................................................................103
STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI, NEGOTIA, LV, 4, 2010
AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF ROMANIA'S
COUNTRY BRAND AS TOURISM DESTINATION
OVIDIU I. MOISESCU
1
ABSTRACT. Considering the essential role that country brands as tourism
destinations play in generating incoming tourism, this paper reveals useful information
for entities concerned with promoting a tourism-based country brand for Romania. The
paper represents an exploratory research, data being collected from a sample of Internet
users from Netherlands, Spain, Poland and U.S.A., using an on-line questionnaire-
based survey. The paper focuses on exploring Romania's country brand association as
they reside in the minds of the actual and potential international visitors, their beliefs
regarding Romania’s potential tourism resources and attractions, and, respectively, its
local factors that may influence travel experiences.
Key words: country brand, tourism destination, brand associations, tourism
attractions.
JEL classification: M31, L83
Introduction
The concept of country branding has received much attention in the
international literature during the last years, tourism destination branding being
among the most debated issues. Still, the methods currently used for country
branding deal with objections and criticism from marketing specialists (Olins,
2002; Anholt, 2008).
Nevertheless, when Simon Anholt (2008) states that nation branding is a
“dangerous myth”, he actually tries to emphasize the complexity of branding a
country in comparison to classically branding a product (Anholt, 2007), one of the
most complex and debated aspects being the way the image of a country as tourism
destination is promoted, evaluated and managed.
Branding a country is not the same thing as promoting tourism. The promotion
of tourism occupies more common ground with nation-branding than any other aspect
of a country’s external affairs, but it is merely a part of the whole (Anholt, 2004).
Considering the increasing importance of country brands as tourism
destinations in generating incoming tourism, this paper focuses on exploring actual
1
Lecturer, PhD, Babeş-Bolyai University of Cluj Napoca, Faculty of Economics and Business
Administration, ovidiu.moisescu@gmail.com & ovidiu.moisescu@econ.ubbcluj.ro
OVIDIU I. MOISESCU
68
and potential international visitors’ perceptions (actual knowledge or just expectations)
regarding, on one hand, Romania’s potential tourism attractions, and, on the other
hand, Romania’s local factors which could influence travel experiences.
Brief literature review
Basically, a country brand could be described as the total sum of all
perceptions about a country or a nation in the mind of international stakeholders
(Fan, 2009). Country branding relates to concepts like place or destination branding
and country of origin effect (Kotler & al., 1993), public diplomacy (van Ham, 2001) or
national identity (Smith, 1991). Actually, country branding comprises all the above.
A country brand may become umbrella brand, ingredient brand or co-brand,
intended to endorse certain economic sectors of a country (Dinnie, 2007), including
tourism. In a more complex approach, country branding concerns the country’s image,
reputation and positioning (Gilmore, 2002), country branding being in some cases
similar to corporate branding, implying the usage of similar branding techniques.
Authors have predicted that the future of marketing will be a battle of
brands, a competition for brand dominance (de Chernatony, 1993), and that within
the tourism industry destinations are emerging as the biggest brands (Morgan and
Pritchard, 2004). More and more tourism destinations are looking to establish their
brand architecture in order to put themselves ahead of their competitors. When they
are whole countries, destinations are often composite brands, being composed of
many different places (Morgan and Pritchard, 2004).
It is important to understand that different places attract different tourists
(Kotler and Gertner, 2004). For tourism to be successful, a country must be very
specific about what it wants to market and to whom. Thus, the tourism market can
be segmented by the attractions that tourists seek (such as natural beauty, sun,
adventure, gaming, events/sports or culture/history) or by areas, regions or
locations, by seasons, by customer’s characteristics or by benefits.
The associations that compound the image of a country brand, in general,
and of a tourism destination, in particular, should be measured at regular intervals,
as changes in brand perception are only likely to be picked up over time, not
instantaneously, some of the main techniques being brand-tracking surveys, online
panel surveys, international benchmarking surveys, visitor satisfaction surveys,
media monitoring (E.T.C., 2009).
The process of auditing a tourism destination brand implies the assessment
of various sources of competitive advantages like (Pike, 2008): natural resources
(location, landscape features, climate), cultural resources (history, language, cuisine,
music, arts & crafts, traditions, customs), human resources (skills and availability of the
region’s labour force; industrial relations; industry service standards; and attitudes of
locals), and good will resources (novelty or fashionability of the destination; levels of
previous visitation and satisfaction; perceived value).
AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF ROMANIA'S COUNTRY BRAND AS TOURISM DESTINATION
69
Research methodology
The research on which this paper is based on is basically exploratory, empirical,
and was implemented using the on-line survey method. An on-line questionnaire was
designed and distributed among potential respondents by email and messages within on-
line social and professional networks, data being collected for a period of one month, at
the beginning of 2010. After responses’ validation, the investigated sample included a
total of 75 Internet users from Netherlands (18), Poland (6), Spain (26) and U.S.A. (25),
among which, considering their experience in visiting Romania, 20 persons had never
been to Romania before, 23 persons had been to Romania once, and, respectively, 32
respondents stated that they had been to Romania several times.
The questionnaire included two open questions meant to assess the unaided
awareness of aspects associated to Romania as a country brand, in general, and as a tourism
destination, in particular, and several closed questions intended to quantify respondents’
perceptions regarding 19 items related to Romania’s potential tourism attractions
(“beaches”, “spas”, “fishing and boating“, “outdoor adventure activities like parachuting,
rock climbing, rafting etc.“, “nightlife considering cafes, pubs, and clubs etc. “,“shopping
facilities“, “historical places”, “archaeological and historic sites etc.”, “castles, palaces
etc.”, “museums, art galleries etc.”, “cathedrals, churches, temples etc.”, “theatres, opera
houses, cinemas etc.”, “festivals, special events etc.”, “lakes, rivers, waterfalls etc.”,
“wildlife sanctuaries like forests, parklands, flora, fauna etc.”, “skiing facilities”, “other
sporting facilities”, “spectacular landscapes”, “beautiful nature sceneries etc.”,
“handicrafts”, “gastronomy”), and, respectively, 19 items related to the local factors
which could influence the travel experience (“good accessibility”, “hospitable/friendly
people”, “multi-languages speaking people”, “interesting/arousing people”, “many and
diversified accommodation facilities”, “high level service in accommodation facilities”,
“many and diversified cafes/restaurants”, “high level service in cafes/restaurants”, “good
infrastructure and roads”, “safe country/destination”, “pleasant climate”, “clean
country/destination”, “low cost”, “high level of tourist/visitor/traveler information
availability”, “good parking facilities”, “good car rental services”, “good public
transportation services”, “uncrowdedness”, “good value for money”).
Results and discussions
The first step of the study consisted in assessing the unaided awareness of
Romania’s country brand general associations, namely the first things (facts,
characteristics, images, places, persons, events etc.) that would come to respondents’
minds when they thought about Romania (Table 1, 1
st
part). The most frequently
recalled and mentioned aspect was related to Dracula, while other important
associations of Romania as a country brand turned out to be related to gastronomy,
people and the personality of the former communist dictator Ceauşescu. Other
important mentioned associations were related to natural aspects (landscapes, sea,
mountains), sports (gymnastics, the gymnast Nadia, the football player Hagi), traditions,
OVIDIU I. MOISESCU
70
cities (Bucharest), or regions (Transylvania). Only two negative aspects were mentioned,
by only one of the 75 respondents (“corruption” and “poverty”). Certain differences
could be observed among respondents from different countries. Thus, most of the
respondents from Netherlands associated Romania to aspects regarding people and
gastronomy, most of those from Spain mentioned Dracula, Ceauşescu and Hagi, while
Americans mostly associated Romania to Dracula, gymnastics, Nadia and gastronomy.
It is also worth mentioning that aspects related to people and gastronomy were more
frequently mentioned by those who had previously visited Romania.
The second step of the study consisted in the measurement of unaided
awareness of Romania’s country brand associations, as a tourism destination (Table 1,
2
nd
part). Although most of the general country brand associations were also associated
to Romania’s brand as a tourism destination, the ranking is significantly different.
Thus, the most frequently recalled aspects were related to the sea, the
churches&castles, the mountains and the character of Dracula. Differences were also
observed among respondents from different countries, the Dutch mostly mentioning
aspects related to the character of Dracula, the sea, the churches&castles, Spaniard
mostly associating Romania as tourism destination to Dracula, sea and mountains,
while Americans mostly mentioned people, churches&castles and mountains. It is,
though, very disappointing that real Romanian tourism attractions like thermal baths
and spas were extremely rare in respondents’ statements.
Table 1.
Unaided awareness of Romania’s country brand associations, in general, and as tourism
destination, in particular
*
“What are the first things (facts, characteristics, images, places, persons, events etc.) that come to
your mind when you think about Romania?” (ranking considering number of recalls)
1. Dracula (“Dracula”, “vampires” etc.) 19
2. Gastronomy (“food”, “good food”, “traditional food” etc.) 15
3. People (“people”, “friendly people”, “hospitable people”, “beautiful girls” etc.) 13
4. Ceausescu (“Ceausescu”, “communism” etc.) 9
5. Landscapes
(“landscapes”, “beautiful landscapes”, “great landscapes”, “beautiful sceneries” etc.)
9
6. Sea (“sea”, “the Black Sea”, “seaside”, “beach” etc.) 8
7. Gymnastics
7
8. Mountains (“mountains”, “Carpathians”, “beautiful mountains” etc.) 6
9. Gica Hagi
5
10. Transylvania
5
11. Churches&castles (“churches”, “medieval churches”, “Moldavian churches”, “monasteries” etc.)
5
12. Nadia Comaneci
4
13. Traditions (“traditions”, “folklore”, “traditional festivals” etc.) 4
14. Danube (“Danube”, “Danube’s Delta”) 3
15. Bucharest
2
AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF ROMANIA'S COUNTRY BRAND AS TOURISM DESTINATION
71
“What are the first things (facts, characteristics, images, places, persons, events etc.) that come to
your mind when you think about Romania as a tourism destination?”
(ranking considering number
of recalls)
1. Sea (“sea”, “the Black Sea”, “seaside”, “beach” etc.) 23
2. Churches&castles (“Dracula’s castle” , “medieval” and “Moldavian” churches, “monasteries”)
22
3. Mountains (“mountains”, “Carpathians”, “beautiful mountains” etc.) 20
4. Dracula (“Dracula”, “vampires” etc.) 18
5. Landscapes (“landscapes”, “beautiful landscapes”, “great landscapes”, “beautiful sceneries” etc.) 8
6. People (“friendly people” or “beautiful girls”) 7
7. Transylvania
4
8. Danube (mostly “Danube’s Delta”) 4
9. Gastronomy (“food”, “good food”, “traditional food” etc.) 3
*
Post-codification. Aspects recalled and mentioned by less than two respondents were not counted.
The following step of the research was intended to explore actual and
potential perceptions (actual knowledge or just expectations) regarding a list of
Romania’s potential tourism attractions (Table 2). Considering the scale from 1 to
4 used for measuring the intensity of the country brand’s association as tourism
destination, it can be said that Romania is highly associated with castles, palaces,
historical/ archaeological places, gastronomy and beautiful landscapes/sceneries
(mean>3.5). Nevertheless, although Romania has real tourism attractions related to
beaches, events, spas, and traditions, these are among those least associated to
Romania as a tourism destination (mean<2.5).
Table 2.
Perceptions of Romania’s potential tourism attractions
%
“Thinking about Romania as a possible
tourism destination, and considering the
information, experiences and perceptions
you
have about the country, to what degree
do you
think the following tourism
attractions
categories apply to Romania?”
1
Definitely
not
2
Probably
not
3
Probably
yes
4
Definitel
y yes
No
opinion
Mean
Std.
dev.
Castles, palaces etc. 2.67 4.00 20.00 72.00 1.33 3.64
0.69
Historical/ archaeological places 2.67 4.00 26.67 66.67 0.00 3.57
0.70
Gastronomy 0.00 5.33 29.33 56.00 9.33 3.56
0.60
Beautiful landscapes/sceneries 0.00 5.33 34.67 56.00 4.00 3.53
0.60
Wildlife sanctuaries 1.33 2.67 42.67 44.00 9.33 3.43
0.63
Cathedrals, churches, temples etc. 0.00 5.33 58.67 34.67 1.33 3.30
0.56
Lakes, rivers, waterfalls etc. 2.67 8.00 46.67 41.33 1.33 3.28
0.73
Outdoor adventure activities 1.33 9.33 54.67 24.00 10.67
3.13
0.64
Museums, art galleries etc. 2.67 12.00 57.33 25.33 2.67 3.08
0.70
Fishing and boating 2.67 10.67 64.00 20.00 2.67 3.04
0.65
OVIDIU I. MOISESCU
72
Nightlife (cafes, pubs, clubs etc.) 2.67 17.33 45.33 26.67 8.00 3.04
0.77
Handicrafts 1.33 9.33 54.67 14.67 20.00
3.03
0.61
Theatres, opera, cinemas etc. 2.67 12.00 61.33 16.00 8.00 2.99
0.65
Festivals, special events etc. 4.00 22.67 40.00 20.00 13.33
2.88
0.82
Beaches 8.00 24.00 49.33 14.67 4.00 2.74
0.82
Other sporting facilities 5.33 22.67 57.33 6.67 8.00 2.71
0.68
Skiing facilities 4.00 34.67 32.00 14.67 14.67
2.67
0.81
Shopping facilities 8.00 42.67 20.00 12.00 17.33
2.44
0.86
Spas 16.00 34.67 18.67 6.67 24.00
2.21
0.88
Given the fact that the statistical variables reflecting the previous associations
were ordinal, Anova tests were used in order to test the complex hypothesis: “The mean
perceptions of Romania’s potential tourism attractions depend on country of residence,
visiting experience, age, gender, relative income and level of education” (Table 3). Given
the investigated sample, all the independent variables seem to have significant
influences on several aspects related Romania’s potential tourism attractions (p<0.05).
Thus, in comparison to the others, respondents from Poland stronger
associate Romania with beaches, shopping facilities and handicrafts, Spaniards
with spas, cathedrals, churches, skiing and spectacular landscapes, Americans with
historical and archaeological places, castles, palaces, lakes, rivers, waterfalls and
wildlife sanctuaries, while Dutch respondents were almost each time those who
least associated Romania with any of the previous potential tourism attractions. As
expected, those who previously visited Romania stronger associate the country with
tourism attractions like spas, cathedrals, churches, festivals, special events and
handicrafts. Still, in all the other cases, the associations don’t significantly depend on
previous visiting experiences. It is also worth mentioning that those between 20-30
years stronger associate Romania with beautiful landscapes and gastronomy, males
stronger associate Romania with spas, and lesser with historical/ archaeological places,
while, in comparison to other income categories, those who declare themselves as
being rich, associate Romania, in a stronger manner, with outdoor adventure, historical
places, castles, palaces and wildlife sanctuaries, and, respectively, lesser with spas,
museums, art galleries, cathedrals, churches, festivals, special events and handicrafts.
Table 3.
Variations of mean perceptions
*
of potential tourism attractions (Anova)
Country
Visiting
experience
Age Gender
Relative
income
F p F p F p F p F p
Beaches
4,50
0,01
2,53
0,09
2,43
0,07
1,86
0,18
1,38 0,26
Spas
9,59
0,00
7,23
0,00
0,34
0,80
8,99
0,00
5,65 0,00
Fishing and boating 0,24
0,87
3,13
0,05
0,37
0,77
0,04
0,84
1,79 0,16
Outdoor adventure activities 1,03
0,38
1,37
0,26
2,28
0,09
1,83
0,18
5,03 0,00
AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF ROMANIA'S COUNTRY BRAND AS TOURISM DESTINATION
73
Nightlife 2,74
0,05
2,26
0,11
0,40
0,76
0,57
0,45
0,77 0,51
Shopping facilities
6,02
0,00
0,57
0,57
0,78
0,51
0,37
0,55
1,67 0,18
Historical/ archaeological places
3,31
0,02
0,68
0,51
0,04
0,99
4,19
0,04
14,41
0,00
Castles, palaces etc.
3,19
0,03
1,70
0,19
0,67
0,57
0,01
0,94
6,35 0,00
Museums, art galleries etc. 1,66
0,18
0,45
0,64
0,47
0,70
2,62
0,11
4,40 0,01
Cathedrals, churches, temples etc.
3,56
0,02
4,02
0,02
1,03
0,38
1,65
0,20
6,36 0,00
Theatres, opera houses, cinemas etc.
1,06
0,37
1,56
0,22
1,55
0,21
0,29
0,59
0,82 0,49
Festivals, special events etc. 1,68
0,18
3,54
0,03
0,30
0,83
0,13
0,72
3,14 0,03
Lakes, rivers, waterfalls etc.
4,75
0,00
0,96
0,39
2,66
0,05
0,71
0,40
1,41 0,25
Wildlife sanctuaries
4,61
0,01
1,74
0,18
0,23
0,87
0,63
0,43
7,42 0,00
Skiing facilities
5,54
0,00
1,11
0,34
0,77
0,51
0,75
0,39
1,58 0,20
Other sporting facilities 0,30
0,82
0,97
0,38
2,07
0,11
1,46
0,23
0,91 0,44
Beautiful landscapes/ sceneries
9,20
0,00
1,40
0,25
4,54
0,01
0,68
0,41
0,61 0,61
Handicrafts 1,35
0,27
2,89
0,06
1,29
0,29
0,80
0,38
1,40 0,26
Gastronomy
6,65
0,00
1,00
0,37
3,30
0,03
0,01
0,93
0,27 0,77
*
Measured as: 1=”Definitely not”, 2=”Probably not”, 3=”Probably yes”, 4=”Definitely yes”
Furthermore, the knowledge or expectations regarding a list of Romania’s
local factors which could influence travel experiences were investigated (Table 4).
Considering the scale from 1 to 4 used for measuring the intensity of these
association, although the results show that Romania is somehow associated with
hospitable/friendly people, interesting/arousing people, a pleasant climate and
many and diversified cafes/restaurants (mean>3), many important aspects are not
quite perceived as being realities in Romania, some of them, like a high level
service in cafes/restaurants, a high level service in accommodation, good parking
facilities or good infrastructure (roads), being actually perceived by most of the
respondents as missing (mean<2.5). Another important aspect is that good value
for money and low costs were not associated to Romania as stronlgy as expected.
Table 4.
Perceptions of Romanian local factors influencing travel experiences
%
“Think about Romania as a tourist destination
.
Considering the information, experiences
and perceptions you have about the country
,
to what degree do you think the following
attributes apply to Romania?”
1
Definitely
not
2
Probably
not
3
Probably
yes
4
Definitely
yes
No
opinion
Mean
Std.
dev.
Hospitable/friendly people 2.70 5.30 36.00 49.30 6.70 3.41 0.73
Interesting/arousing people 0.00 6.70 62.70 20.00 10.70 3.15 0.53
Pleasant climate 1.30 2.70 76.00 17.30 2.70 3.12 0.50
Many and diversified cafes/restaurants 1.30 8.00 65.30 17.30 8.00 3.07 0.58
Diversified accommodation facilities 0.00 24.00 58.70 12.00 5.30 2.87 0.61
Uncrowded 5.30 14.70 62.70 4.00 13.30 2.75 0.64
Safe country/destination 5.30 22.70 49.30 8.00 14.70 2.70 0.73
Good value for money 6.70 24.00 44.00 9.30 16.00 2.67 0.78
OVIDIU I. MOISESCU
74
Low cost 2.70 37.30 34.70 10.70 14.70 2.63 0.75
Availability of traveler information 4.00 21.30 38.70 4.00 32.00 2.63 0.69
Good accessibility 10.70 22.70 57.30 6.70 2.70 2.62 0.78
Good public transportation services 6.70 18.70 53.30 1.30 20.00 2.62 0.67
Multi-languages speaking people 4.00 41.30 26.70 14.70 13.30 2.60 0.83
Good car rental services 4.00 25.30 38.70 2.70 29.30 2.57 0.67
Clean country/destination 10.70 25.30 53.30 5.30 5.30 2.56 0.77
High level service in cafes/restaurants 4.00 44.00 34.70 4.00 13.30 2.45 0.66
High level service in accommodation 5.30 56.00 18.70 1.30 18.70 2.20 0.57
Good parking facilities 12.00 48.00 21.30 2.70 16.00 2.17 0.71
Good infrastructure (roads) 33.30 41.30 9.30 4.00 12.00 1.82 0.80
The ordinal type of the statistical variables reflecting the previous
associations allowed Anova tests to be run in order to test the complex hypothesis:
“The mean perceptions of Romania’s local factors influencing travel experiences
depend on country, visiting experience, age, gender, relative income and level of
education” (Table 5). Although the gender of the respondents within the given
sample doesn’t significantly influence the previously listed associations, all the
other independent variables have significant influences on the perception of several
aspects related Romania’s local factors affecting travel experiences (p<0.05).
Thus, in comparison to the others, respondents from Poland stronger
associate Romania with hospitable/friendly people and good value for money,
Spaniards with multi-languages speaking people and pleasant climate, Americans
with clean country/destination and good public transportation services, while Dutch
stronger associate Romania with good infrastructure (roads) and good car rental
services. On the other hand, Spaniards least associated Romania with good
infrastructure (roads), clean country/destination, good car rental services, good
public transportation services or good value for money, while the Dutch least
associate Romania with hospitable/friendly people, multi-languages speaking
people and pleasant climate. Also, those who previously visited Romania stronger
associate the country with a pleasant climate, but lesser with a good infrastructure
(roads) – the reality was probably worse than expected. Other findings worth
mentioning were that those between 31-40 years old stronger associate Romania
with good infrastructure and low cost, while, in comparison to other income
categories, those who declare themselves as being rich, associate Romania more
intensively with good infrastructure (roads), safe country/destination, good public
transportation services and uncrowdedness, and, respectively, less intensively with
interesting/arousing people and pleasant climate.
AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF ROMANIA'S COUNTRY BRAND AS TOURISM DESTINATION
75
Table 5.
Variations of mean perceptions
*
of local factors influencing travel experiences (Anova)
Country
Visiting
experience
Age Gender
Relative
income
F p F p F p F p F p
Good accessibility 2,47
0,07
0,95
0,39
0,39
0,76
0,16
0,69
3,26
0,03
Hospitable/friendly people
6,32
0,00
2,48
0,09
1,45
0,24
1,45
0,23
1,74
0,17
Multi-languages speaking people
6,98
0,00
1,47
0,24
1,14
0,34
1,31
0,26
2,83
0,05
Interesting/arousing people 1,91
0,14
0,26
0,77
1,34
0,27
0,24
0,62
3,71
0,02
Diversified accommodation
facilities
2,01
0,12
0,34
0,71
0,88
0,46
0,21
0,65
0,58
0,63
High level service in
accommodation 0,62
0,60
0,42
0,66
2,22
0,10
0,58
0,45
1,72
0,17
Many and diversified
cafes/restaurants 1,43
0,24
1,30
0,28
2,55
0,06
0,03
0,87
0,03
0,99
High level service in
cafes/restaurants
2,36
0,08
0,32
0,73
2,74
0,05
3,93
0,05
0,74
0,53
Good infrastructure (roads)
5,26
0,00
4,39
0,02
5,14
0,00
0,04
0,85
7,68
0,00
Safe country/destination 2,14
0,10
0,30
0,74
2,60
0,06
0,00
0,95
3,97
0,01
Pleasant climate
2,92
0,04
3,95
0,02
2,39
0,08
1,07
0,31
3,66
0,02
Clean country/destination
10,97
0,00
2,78
0,07
2,72
0,05
0,24
0,63
1,12
0,35
Low cost
4,40
0,01
0,26
0,77
3,56
0,02
1,29
0,26
1,29
0,28
Availability of traveler information
2,79
0,05
0,21
0,81
1,39
0,26
0,02
0,90
0,81
0,50
Good parking facilities 2,15
0,10
3,05
0,05
1,25
0,30
0,07
0,79
2,90
0,04
Good car rental services
7,04
0,00
1,94
0,15
1,45
0,24
0,22
0,64
1,61
0,20
Good public transportation services
4,88
0,00
0,74
0,48
1,15
0,34
0,94
0,34
3,08
0,03
Uncrowded 1,70
0,18
2,45
0,09
0,76
0,52
0,39
0,53
5,06
0,00
Good value for money
5,39
0,00
0,60
0,55
0,73
0,54
0,01
0,92
1,88
0,14
*
Measured as: 1=”Definitely not”, 2=”Probably not”, 3=”Probably yes”, 4=”Definitely yes”
Conclusions and future research directions
The research revealed interesting and extremely useful information for any
entity interested in promoting a tourism-based country brand for Romania.
The unaided awareness investigation regarding the country brand’s
association which reside in the minds of the actual or potential international
visitors, emphasized the fact that many of Romania’s brand association, in general,
are very similar to its associations as a tourism destination, in particular, and,
therefore, the country’s brand could and should rely on its tourism potential.
Among the aspects unaided recalled, some were expected (Dracula, castles,
churches, sea, landscape, mountains etc.), but some were unexpected and
pleasantly surprising: gastronomy and friendly people etc.
The beliefs of actual and potential international visitors regarding
Romania’s potential tourism resources and attractions revealed a set of items that
are insufficiently known and promoted, although Romania has an enormous
potential: beaches, spas, festivals and skiing.
OVIDIU I. MOISESCU
76
In what concerns the beliefs regarding the local factors that may influence
travel experiences, the situation is negative, radical and urgent measures being
necessary, both from authorities and players of the hospitality industry: better
service level in cafes/restaurants and accommodation facilities, better parking
facilities, better infrastructure and roads, and better value for money, in general.
Finally, the research showed significant variations in perceptions
depending on respondents’ country of residence, visiting experience, age, gender,
and relative income. Still, given the exploratory nature of the research, its empirical
sampling method and the small-sized sample investigated, the accepted hypotheses
should further be developed and tested within a larger-sized sample and a
probabilistic sampling procedure.
REFERENCES
1) Anholt, S. (2004) “Nation-brands and the value of provenance” in Morgan, N.,
Pritchard, A., Pride, R. (eds), Destination Branding – Creating the Unique
Destination Proposition (2nd ed.), Butterworth-Heinemann, p.26-39
2) Anholt, S. (2007) “Competitive identity: the new brand management for nations,
cities & regions”, Macmillan
3) Anholt, S. (2008) “Why nation branding does not exist?”, available at
www.cosmoworlds.com
4) de Chernatony, L. (1993) “Categorizing brands: Evolutionary processes underpinned
by two key dimensions”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.9, p.173-188
5) Dinnie, K. (2007) “Nation branding: concepts, issues, practice”, Butterworth Heinemann
6) ETC & UNWTO (2009) “Handbook on Tourism Destination Branding”, available
at www.unwto.org
7) Gilmore, F. (2002) “A country - can it be repositioned?”, Journal of Brand
Management, 9(4-5)
8) Kotler, P., Gertner, D. (2004) “Country as brand, product and beyond: a place
marketing and brand management perspective” in Morgan, N., Pritchard, A.,
Pride, R. (eds), Destination Branding – Creating the Unique Destination
Proposition (2nd ed.), Butterworth-Heinemann, p.40-56
9) Kotler, P., Haider, D.H., Rein I. (1993) “Marketing Places”, The Free Press, New York
10) Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. (2004) “Meeting the destination branding challenge” in
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., Pride, R. (eds), Destination Branding – Creating the
Unique Destination Proposition (2nd ed.), Butterworth-Heinemann, p.59-78
11) Olins W. (2002) “Branding the nation - the historical context”, Journal of Brand
Management, 9(4-5)
12) Pike, S. (2008) “Destination Marketing. An Integrated Marketing Communication
Approach” (2nd ed.), Butterworth-Heinemann
13) Smith, A. D., (1991) “National Identity”, Penguin Books, London
14) Van Ham, P. (2001) “The Rise of the Brand State”, Foreign Affairs, October
