Tourism Marketing for Developing Countries

Battling Stereotypes and Crises in Asia, Africa and the Middle East

Eli Avraham, Eran Ketter

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781137342140
• eBook ISBN: 9781137342157
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business Strategy
• Index: Business

Tourism Marketing for Developing Countries examines media strategies used by destinations in Asia, the Middle East and Africa to battle stereotypes, negative images and crises in order to attract tourists.

1

Perceptions, Stereotypes and Media Image of the Developing World

The image of a country can affect the decisions made by a wide range of audiences, such as foreign investors, tourists, consumers, students, entrepreneurs, trading partners, officials of other countries, potential donors and multilateral agencies (Anholt, 2009; Martínez and Alvarez, 2010; White and Radic, 2014). In the field of tourism, we know that the public image and the media image of a country are crucial for many decisions and behaviors made by tourists, including whether and where to visit or travel in that country, what will be the aim and content of the visit, and what will be the length of the stay. This is why analyzing, understanding and measuring the projected image is a necessary step for every marketer and is crucial for every marketing initiative (Khan, 2013).

Advertising has many aims (Morrison, 2002); one of them is to convince members of the target audience about the positive experience they will have if they use a product, and the dreams and needs (real or socially constructed) that they hope to fulfill. In achieving these dreams and needs, a product image has a central role (Matize and Oni, 2014). Before analyzing strategies chosen by developing countries to market themselves and to restore a positive image, there is a need to deal with the coverage patterns of these countries in the international media and their image among Western audiences. Such audiences have been the focus of the developing countries’ marketers for many years, although the search for other target audiences beyond the Western countries has been quite extensive over the last decade. This chapter will focus on the public and media image of destinations in the developing world, the factors shaping the public image of developing countries and the reasons for the problematic perception of these countries, mainly in the West.

The public and media images of a destination

What is the essence of an image? The answer to this has been investigated by researchers from various countries and disciplines and it is natural to assume a variety of focuses in the definitions offered. In the fields of communications and media, Daniel Boorstin (1961) in his classic book The Image defines it as: “An image . . . is not simply a trademark, a design, a slogan or an easily remembered picture. It is a studiously crafted personality profile of an individual, institution, corporation, product or service” (Campbell et al., 2006, p. 425). In the field of branding, it is important to monitor and evaluate the perception of a country’s current image and manage it effectively (Anholt, 2009). Dinnie (2010) emphasizes the practical side of image management. In the field of reputation and crisis communication, the need to use strategic management stands in the center of the image’s definition; as Aula and Mantere (2009) state, their reputation is a key resource for companies, so they have to strive to manage this resource strategically.

Place image has always been a central concept, even back in the days when European superpowers were trying to convince their citizens to emigrate to the new colonies they had conquered. This was also the case when the American government was trying to attract inhabitants to the new areas in the West during the 19th century. Shani and Wang (2011) claimed that in the mid-1970s the idea of a destination’s image became one of the most important concepts in tourism destination marketing (Stepchenkova and Li, 2014). The discussion over a place’s image is essential, as almost every new public relations and advertising campaign depends on the attempts to take an existing image and reinforce, stretch, spin, expand or improve it in order to attract more tourists to the destination, to visit a variety of attractions there or to convince them to extend the length of their stay (Morgan and Pritchard, 2001; Baker, 2007).

When discussing a destination’s image, it is important to distinguish between the image among a specific target audience (the “public image”) and the destination’s image in the mass media (the “media image”). Local and national leaders, decision-makers, marketers and PR professionals tend to think that these two types are closely linked; therefore they spend resources, time and effort in creating a positive media image in the hope that it will result in a positive image among the target audience (Fahmy, 2010; Martínez and Alvarez, 2010; Khan, 2013; Matize and Oni, 2014; Stepchenkova and Li, 2014; White and Radic, 2014). The converse also applies: a negative media image will result in a negative image of the destination among the target audience as well as perceptions that it is not worth visiting the place because it is dangerous, unsafe or boring (White and Radic, 2014). Galician and Vestra (1987) found that bad news has a strong effect on the image of the place; there is, therefore, a correlation between the coverage patterns of that particular place and the way in which it is perceived among the target audience (Stepchenkova and Eales, 2011; Khan, 2013).

Destination’s public image

Academics and scholars from various disciplines have attempted to define the image of a place. According to Stepchenkova and Li (2014), a destination image includes the attributes of a destination and the perceptions that characterize it. This definition is similar to that of Kotler et al. (1993) who defined the image of a place as “the sum of beliefs, ideals, and impressions that people have of a place” (p. 141). These researchers argued that an image is the simplification of numerous associations and pieces of information related to a place, and the cognitive product of the attempt to process large amounts of information. In a more updated definition, Kotler and Gertner (2002) add: “Images are a product of the mind trying to process and pick out essential information from huge amounts of data about a place” (p. 251). Boulding (1956, cited in Elizur, 1987) takes a similar view, defining an image as the sum of the cognitive, affective and evaluative characteristics of the place, or an inherent perspective of itself. Boulding distinguishes the image of the place’s residents from that of outsiders. He implies that the image is composed of four components: (a) Cognitive (what one believes and knows about a place with focus on its physical attributes); (b) Affective (how one feels about what he/she knows about a certain place); (c) Evaluative (how one evaluates the place and/or its residents); and (d) Behavioral (whether one considers immigrating to/working in/visiting/investing in a certain place).

It’s important to mention that isolating Boulding’s components is possible only through academic analysis, as they are all interrelated and affect one another. If, for example, a certain person feels affection for a place, he/she will also presumably find it attractive, its residents friendly, as well as interesting and a fun place for visitors. Shani and Wang (2011) also claimed that the effective image component has been found to have a crucial impact on tourists’ assessments and selection of destination. While Boulding chose to divide the image into several components, Elizur (1987) offered a more comprehensive definition, stating that an image of a place is the sum of all the facts and characteristics that come to mind when one thinks of the place.

Since the beginning of the 2000s there has been a tendency to expand the concept of a “public image” and to distinguish between the overall image of a country and its tourist destination image (Echtner, 2002; Martínez and Alvarez, 2010; Khan, 2013). Echtner (2002), for example, states that this is the case regarding countries in the developing world where many of them are perceived as an exotic paradise from the tourist’s point of view but, on the other hand, such places are also perceived as poor, dangerous and barbaric. Martínez and Alvarez (2010) found that, in the case of Turkey, there is a gap between the country’s image and its destination image. According to these authors, a country’s image is influenced by various types of information and sources over the years, and the destination’s image is constructed from the promotional industry, campaigns, brochures and photographs. However, it is quite possible that with regard to developing countries, Western individuals might hold a negative image, in general, together with a positive attractive image of the country as a tourist destination.

In the last few years, with the growing popularity of branding in destination marketing, researchers have been largely discussing the concept of “reputation”. According to Aula and Mantere (2009), the concept of a corporate reputation has been used simply as a substitute for the earlier term, “public image”. Passow et al. (2005) developed the Country Reputation Index (CRI), which is a 20-item scale based on 6 dimensions: the appeal of the emotional, physical, financial, leadership, cultural and social aspects of the country.

Types of destination’s public image

From the theoretical-academic point of view as well as through its emotional appeal, a destination image is a complex concept. Gallarza et al. (2002) mentioned four main characteristics of a destination image that we need to take into account when we deal with images: (1) Complex (controversial concept); (2) Multiple (consists of manifold features that represent its identity); (3) Relativistic (subjective and tends to change from person to person); and (4) Dynamic (not static and likely to change over time). The “complexity” of a destination image has created a discussion over the types of image that exist.

Kotler et al. (1993) argue that a destination’s image can be positive and attractive, negative, weak (as in the case of peripheral locations that are not well known), mixed (when the image includes both positive and negative elements), or contradictory (when the place has a favorable image according to one population and a negative one with another). Destination images can also be classified as “rich” or “poor”. “Rich” means that we have a great deal of knowledge and information about the destination, usually from a variety of sources as well as from personal visits; “poor” means that we know very little about the place, and what we do know usually comes from only one source of information (Elizur, 1987), which, in many cases, is the media (Khan, 2013).

Scott (cited in Elizur, 1987) refers to rich/poor images and offers a graphic star-shaped model, aggregating different attributions. According to the star model, each cognitive trait forms a straight line, intersecting with all the other traits of the same place. The sum of all different traits creates the shape of a star; the more lines a star has, the richer the image it represents. But not all traits have the same effect: some lines in the graphic model are salient while others are almost invisible (Elizur, 1987; Avraham and Ketter, 2008a). Nevertheless, the model emphasizes that a place image is a dynamic thing. The star model clearly illustrates that by marketing different perspectives of a place, a poor image can be turned into a rich one. The star model also suggests a way to handle stereotypes and negative perceptions: the more dimensions a place has, the less the audience will focus on its problematic aspects. Intensive marketing of an attractive facet can become the dominant part in the place’s image and thus overcome the previous perception where the attractive aspect was not particularly salient. According to Dinnie (2010), a country’s image can sometimes be strongly positive but only in one dimension and this is a problematic situation that may limit that nation’s potential scope of activity.

A third way to classify a destination image is along the continuum between “open” and “closed”. “Open images” allow the addition of more characteristics whereas “closed images” are unlikely to have new characteristics added, at least not thos...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: Tourism Marketing for Developing Countries
• 1 Perceptions, Stereotypes and Media Image of the Developing World
• 2 Factors Influencing the Media Image of Developing Countries
• 3 Marketing and Destination Branding
• 4 Tourism Marketing for Destinations with Negative Images
• 5 Marketing Middle East Destinations
• 6 Marketing African Destinations
• 7 Marketing Asian Destinations
• 8 Final Observations and Insights
• References
• Index