Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing | Đại học Ngoại Ngữ - Tin Học Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing | Đại học Ngoại Ngữ - Tin Học Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh được sưu tầm và soạn thảo dưới dạng file PDF để gửi tới các bạn sinh viên cùng tham khảo, ôn tập đầy đủ kiến thức, chuẩn bị cho các buổi học thật tốt. Mời bạn đọc đón xem

16 8 lượt tải Tải xuống

Chia sẻ Báo cáo tài liệu

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wttm20

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing

ISSN: 1054-8408 (Print) 1540-7306 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttm20

Customer experience and engagement in

tourism destinations: the experiential marketing

perspective

Raouf Ahmad Rather

To cite this article: Raouf Ahmad Rather (2020) Customer experience and engagement in tourism

destinations: the experiential marketing perspective, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 37:1,

15-32, DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2019.1686101

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1686101

Published online: 17 Dec 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1

View related articles

View Crossmark data

ARTICLE

Customer experience and engagement in tourism destinations: the experiential

marketing perspective

Raouf Ahmad Rather

Department of Tourism Studies, Central University of Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmir, India

ABSTRACT

Tourism destinations are increasingly oﬀering experiential services to promote the development of

their competitive advantage. This research investigates the eﬀects of customers’ tourism engage-

ment with experiential marketing activities and develops and tests a framework in this area.

Findings suggest that customer engagement’s dimensions exert diﬀering eﬀects on customer

experience and identiﬁcation, which subsequently aﬀect behavioral intention toward destinations.

Findings also suggest the indirect eﬀects of customer engagement dimensions on behavioural

intentions via experience and identiﬁcation. Further, ﬁndings propose the signiﬁcant di erenceﬀ

between ﬁrst-time and repeat-visitors in terms of the underlying constructs. Theoretical and

practical implications of results are discussed.

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 2 August 2019

Revised 17 September 2019

Accepted 11 October 2019

KEYWORDS

Experiential marketing;

customer experience;

customer engagement;

identiﬁcation; behavioral

intention; ﬁrst-time visitors;

repeat-visitors; destination;

tourism

Introduction

Market globalization is inﬂuencing tourism industry

globally. Economic downturn, intensiﬁed competition,

and growth of new technologies oﬀer opportunities as

well as threats (Hollebeek & Macky, 2019; Hultman,

Skarmeas, Oghazi, & Beheshti, 2015). Researchers con-

sider the tourism industry as a technology adoption

pioneer, which innovates from computerized reservation

systems to new marketing practices and E-business

(Hultman et al., 2015). In the context of this, tourism

service providers are promptly employing branding stra-

tegies parallel to those product marketers in an attempt

to highlight the tourist destination uniqueness (Usakli &

Baloglu, 2011). In accordance with these developments,

tourism destination numbers have increased to cater

with the fast developing demand of global tourism.

With the help of these technologies, customers are pro-

gressively shaping their own tourism experiences, as

substantiated by Pine and Gilmore’s (1998) experiential

marketing perspective (Le, Scott, & Lohmann, 2019;

Schmitt, 1999a 2015; Song, Ahn, & Lee, ). Kumar, Rajan,

Gupta, and Dalla Pozza (2019) claims that the business

development is shifting from products toward customer-

based processes. This leads Prahalad and Ramaswamy

(2003, p. 12) to propose that “a new point of view is

required, one that allows individual customers to actively

construct their own consumption experiences through

personalized interaction, thereby co-creating unique

value for themselves.” Likewise, Hollebeek and Macky

(2019) propose that customers don’t like to purchase

the product/s, but rather the stories behind and the

experience enabled by o erings.ﬀ

The reason behind the current tourism boom is

a question asked by both academics and industry.

Experiential marketing has been derived from the experi-

ence economy concept (Pine & Gilmore, 1998), that is

undoubtedly strongly present in the highly intangible

experience economy (Le et al., 2019; Quan & Wang,

2004; Song et al., 2015; Tsaur, Chiu, & Wang, 2007), as

illustrated by Disneyland’s 1955 opening (Hannam, 2004).

Therefore, what does a customer gets from tourism or

travel oﬀerings? First and foremost, the customer’s per-

ceived beneﬁts lie in experience. While economic oﬀer-

ings like goods, commodities, or services are external to

customer, experiences are intrinsically personal and exist

only in the customer’s minds who have been engaged on

intellectual, physical, emotional, and/or spiritual level

(Hollebeek, Glynn, & Brodie, 2014; Pine & Gilmore, 1998;

Tsaur et al., 2007). A delightful experience would last long

in customer’s minds and inﬂuence their consequent beha-

viors. Consequently, managing the customer’s experien-

tial environment is a key concern for the survival and

competitive advantage of tourism ﬁrms.

Despite these invaluable conceptual works on the

experience economy, empirical study remains limited.

One main reason probably lies in the fact that few of

these theoretical writings oﬀer an easily operationalizable

foundation for empirical investigation (Brodie & Hollebeek,

CONTACT Raouf Ahmad Rather r.raouf18@gmail.com

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

2019, VOL. 37, NO. 1, 15 32–

https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1686101

2011). One exception to this observation is indeed oﬀered

by Pine and Gilmore (1998), which explicitly operationalizes

the experience economy in terms of four dimensions:

Escapism, esthetics, education, and entertainment. In addi-

tion, “Given the relatively nascent state of the customer

experience (CX) literature, there is limited empirical work

directly related to customer experience and the customer

journey” (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016, p. 70). For example,

“there is a strong need to explore how extant marketing

constructs, like customer engagement (CE) and commit-

ment, relate to customer experience and interact with each

other, resulting in the overall customer experience” (Lemon

& Verhoef, 2016, p. 85). Moreover, “there is a critical need

for researchers to develop and test such an integrated

conceptual model of customer experience and the custo-

mer journey” (Homburg, Jozić & Kuehn, 2017; Lemon &

Verhoef, 2016, p. 85). Because of the absence of sound

measurement development for CX, there exists a scarcity

of research on how CX can be aﬀected and on the con-

sequences of CX (Homburg et al., 2017; Lemon & Verhoef,

2016). Research have mostly investigated the drivers of

customer value, commitment or satisfaction (e.g. Hultman

et al., 2015 2019; Rather & Hollebeek, ; Song et al., 2015) but

haven’t measured CX drivers as a broad construct (Islam,

Hollebeek, Rahman, Khan, & Rasool, 2019; Lemon &

Verhoef, 2016 2009; Verhoef et al., ). Thus, this research

extends this gap by exploring the role of CE as a driver of

customer experience in a broader nomological network.

Customer engagement/CE has transpired as a construct

of growing relevance in topical marketing literature and as

a new technique in fostering consumer value and under-

standing contemporary marketing (Brodie, Hollebeek,

Jurić, & Ilić, 2011; Harrigan, Evers, Miles, & Daly,

2018 2019a 2019; Hollebeek et al., ; Kumar et al., ). The MSI

(2014–2016) and (2016–2018) positioned CE and CX as the

most signiﬁcant research challenges in upcoming years.

Over the previous decade, customer engagement research

has been performed with online foci or substantial service

(e.g. Hollebeek & Andreassen, 2018). For example, existing

research has examined customer engagement in virtual/

social media brand communities (e.g. Hollebeek et al.,

2014), with reference to hedonic (vs. utilitarian) brands

(Hollebeek, 2011) and integrated resort brands (Ahn &

Back, 2018), to name a few. In tourism/destination market-

ing and management that signiﬁes a particular service

subsector, this research identiﬁes studies which address

customer engagement in heritage places/sites (Bryce,

Ross, Kevin, & Taheri, 2015), social media interactions

(Harrigan et al., 2018), luxury hotel brands (Islam et al.,

2019 2019; Rather & Camilleri, ), and airline brands (So,

King, & Sparks, 2014), amongst others. In spite of extant

insight, the role of tourism destination customer engage-

ment and its speciﬁc conceptual associations remain

unknown. Addressing this research gap, this study investi-

gates CE’s nomological network in tourism destination

marketing context. In particular, this research explores the

role of CE dimensions in driving customer experience and

customer identiﬁcation, and their impact on behavioral

intention. Moreover, various constructs and variables

have been examined as the consequences of CE in extant

research, incorporating brand usage intention and self-

brand connection (Hollebeek et al., 2014), brand trust and

co-creation (Rather, Hollebeek, & Islam, 2019), repatronage

intent and brand experience (Islam et al., 2019), electronic

word-of-mouth (Taheri, Jafari, & O’Gorman, 2014), satisfac-

tion and loyalty (Rather, 2018a; So et al., 2014). Although

given its relative signiﬁcance, empirical research to under-

stand engagement while actually experiencing tourism

destinations/oﬀerings are scant. Thus, there are few exist-

ing studies and none (to our knowledge) in the area of

tourism destination marketing that explores the associa-

tion between customer engagement dimensions and cus-

tomer experience and other related variables (e.g.

customer identiﬁcation, behavioral intention) that are

deemed to be of interest to tourism destinations/ﬁrms.

Further, since engaged and loyal visitors have constantly

been recognized as essential factors for market segment

(Brodie & Hollebeek, 2011; Liu, Lin, & Wang, 2012), little is

known about the diﬀerences relating to ﬁrst-time custo-

mers and repeat visitors (e.g. Chua, Lee, & Han, 2017; Li,

Cheng, Kim, & Petrick, 2008; Liu et al., 2012). The diﬀerences

between ﬁrst-time and repeat tourists are getting more

interest from the marketing and tourism scholar’s perspec-

tive. Information regarding visitor’s status like ﬁrst-time

and/or repeat tourists could be helpful in identifying

a tourism destination’s position in its life cycle, signalling

destination familiarity and market segmentation (Li et al.,

2008).

Recent destination marketing and management

research (e.g. Chen, Drennan, Andrews, & Hollebeek,

2018; Hultman et al., 2015; Le et al., 2019; Rather,

Hollebeek et al., 2019; Song et al., 2015; Taheri et al.,

2014) develops on conventional marketing and branding

literature (such as Aaker, 1997), that proposes individuals

likely to identify towards brands or destinations. Customer

engagement and customer brand identiﬁcation customer/

identiﬁcation are critical in purchase likelihood, brand

choice, and ﬁnally success of brand (e.g. Aaker, 1997;

Hollebeek et al., 2014; Kumar & Kaushik, 2018). An exten-

sive consent subsists in management and marketing lit-

erature on three diﬀerent statements: (i) CE can lead to

sustainable competitive advantage, value-creating consu-

mers and develop strong loyal consumer base (ii) retain-

ing consumers is good business, and (iii) customer

experience and identiﬁcation are main drivers for future

customer behavior, particularly in tourism, in which

16 R. A. RATHER

intangible services/oﬀerings are hard to assess before

consumption (Hultman et al., 2015; Kumar & Kaushik,

2018; Kumar et al., 2019; Lemon & Verhoef, ).2016

Building on the above gaps, this study makes important

theoretical and managerial contributions. First, as sug-

gested multiple authors have called for more empirical

studies that investigate CE phenomena, particularly in the

tourism context (Harrigan et al., 2018; Kim & Chen, 2019; So

et al., 2014; Taheri et al., 2014). This research satisﬁes these

calls by investigating two major outcomes of customer

engagement dimensions namely customer experience

and identiﬁcation and oﬀers a framework in this area.

Due to this association, the present research uncovers the

insights into those CE dimensions which are more favor-

able in building tourism customer experience and identiﬁ-

cation. This study thus examines the association between

CE and CX, which although being studied conceptually so

far (e.g. Hollebeek, 2011; Hollebeek & Andreassen, 2018;

Lemon & Verhoef, 2016), to the best of our information lags

behind as for empirical exploration is concerned.

The advancement of increased insight into customer

engagement’s role in inﬂuencing consumers’ overall jour-

ney-linked perceptions thereby reveals a worthwhile con-

tribution to the marketing and management literature

(Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). Second, this research tests the

mechanism through which these outcomes aﬀect beha-

vioural intention. Third, the present research explores the

indirect eﬀects of CE including aﬀective, cognitive, and

behavioral dimensions on behavioural intention through

customer experience and identiﬁcation in tourism destina-

tions. Fourth, this study also intends to explore the diﬀer-

ence between ﬁrst-time and repeat customers in terms of

customer’s engagement, experience, identiﬁcation, and

loyalty constructs. Finally, future research directions are

discussed to address research gaps in the literature.

Practically, the study ﬁndings reveal that CE makes

a substantial contribution to customer experience, there-

fore revealing a superior level of managerial signiﬁcance.

This study thus presumes that not only customer engage-

ment should be regarded as an integrated strategic and

core aspects to promote increased customer experience,

but also guides to strong customer’s identiﬁcation, which

in turn eﬀects behavioural intention.

Theoretical framework and hypotheses

Experiential marketing is a rising marketing management

philosophy (Le et al., 2019; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Song

et al., 2015; Tsaur et al., 2007), which has been shown

eﬀective in driving tourist behavior (Brun, Rajaobelina,

Ricard, & Berthiaume, 2017; Rather, 2018c; Sharma &

Nayak, 2019). Experiences are private events, which hap-

pen in reply to customer’s sense(s) being stimulated (e.g.

thrill-seeking), which typically result from participation

and/or direct observation in events, whether dreamlike,

virtual or real (Schmitt, 1999b). In the tourism context,

experience has been viewed as a subjective mental state

felt by consumers (Tsaur et al., 2007). Further, experiences

are normally not self-generated but induced. Experiences

are linked to events which they react to. Furthermore,

experiences can be described as complex, emerging

structures, that is, no two experiences are alike accurately

(e.g. Schmitt, 1999b; Tsaur et al., 2007).

In marketing, the idea of experience was ﬁrst discussed

and conceptualized in the topical work of Hirschman and

Holbrook (1982), which has to turn out to be an important

element in understanding customer behavior through the

overall consumption experience (Coudounaris & Sthapit,

2017; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). The experiential facets of

consumption emerged at 1990s after Pine and Gilmore

(1998) addressed how economies change. Economic activ-

ities intend not only for output but for experience through

consumption (Quan & Wang, 2004). Pine and Gilmore

(1998) further advocate that experience represents

a speciﬁc type of economic oﬀering that generates compe-

titive beneﬁt which is diﬃcult to imitate or substitute.

Based on these developments, Hirschman and Holbrook

(1982) and Lemon and Verhoef (2016) propose customer

experience orientation as an eminent approach for scholars

as well as marketing practitioners. Schmitt (1999a) argues

that because traditional marketing provides a rational,

engineering-driven and outdated, a need exists for the

development of experiential marketing. The author also

suggests that what consumer’s desire is communications,

products, and marketing campaigns which touch their

hearts, overwhelm their senses, stimulate their minds and

include into their lifestyles. Customers thus desire for com-

munications, marketing campaigns and oﬀerings to deliver

an experience.

Consequently, experiential marketing is increasingly uti-

lized by marketers to build experiential connections with

consumers (Homburg et al., 2017; Le et al., 2019; S

chmitt,

1999a 1999a 1999b). Schmitt ( , ) suggested the strategic

experiential modules (SEMs) concept which marketing man-

agers can adopt to generate diﬀerent kinds of CX for their

consumers (Song et al., 2015; Tsaur et al., 2007). In experi-

ential marketing, the experiential modules include aﬀective

experiences (FEEL), sensory experiences (SENSE), creative

cognitive experiences (THINK), behaviors and lifestyles

(ACT), social-identity experiences and physical experiences

which result from relating to a reference group/culture

(RELATE). Experiential marketing aims to generate compre-

hensive integrated experiences which possess

simultaneously the qualities of FEEL, SENSE, ACT, THINK,

and RELATE. Each of these dimensions/aspects is

discussed below.

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 17

Sense marketing

SENSE marketing or SENSE module are focused on

senses by generating sensory experiences due to sight,

taste, touch, sound, and smell. Sense is the key response

in which one individual engages in an experiential envir-

onment. SENSE marketing can be employed to distin-

guish ﬁrms, products, and brands (e.g. destinations) to

motivate consumers by adding value to products/ser-

vices (e.g. through excitement or aesthetics) (Schmitt,

1999a 2007; Tsaur et al., ).

Feel marketing

FEEL marketing enriches consumer’s emotions and

inner feelings by generating aﬀective experiences

which range from slightly positive moods related to

a brand/destination (e.g. for a non-involving) to

strong feelings/emotions of pride and joy (e.g. for

a customer durable, social marketing campaign or

technology) (Schmitt, 1999a).

Think marketing

THINK marketing appeals to the intellect by generating

problem-solving, cognitive experiences, which engagecon-

sumes creatively. In tourism, one of the objectives is har-

mony. It proposes that the tourism destination authority

allocates itself to harmonizing the relationship between

nature and humankind. In tourism, various educational

tours accumulate the ideas of environmental security

on the explanation boards to engage its visitor’s divergent

and convergent thinking via surprise, intrigue, and

provocation (Tsaur et al., 2007). Such reconsiderations cre-

ate the problem-solving and cognitive experiences for its

customers/visitors.

Act marketing

ACT marketing appeals consumer’s lives by focusing their

physical experiences, showing customers alternative life-

styles and interactions, alternative ways of doing things.

Rational perspectives to behaviour change (e.g. theories

of reasoned actions) are just one of the several behavioural

change alternatives (Schmitt, 1999a). Changes in beha-

viours and lifestyles are usually most inspirational, emo-

tional and motivational and normally inspired by

exemplarslike athletesor movie stars. In tourism,customers

understand ways to appreciate focal objects (like other

customers) and change their lifestyles and attitudes (Tsaur

et al., 2007).

Relate marketing

RELATE marketing extends outside the customer’s pri-

vate, personal feelings, thereby linking the customer to

something beyond its private state. RELATE campaigns

enrich customer’s desire for self-improvement (such as

a future “ideal self”, which she/he desires to relate to).

Relate appeal to the need to be recognized positively by

others like one’s family, peers, and colleagues (Schmitt,

1999a). They relate the visitors to a large social system

like sub-culture, a country, so on (Tsaur et al., 2007).

Customer engagement

Although the engagement concept is examined across

ﬁelds including psychology (such as task engagement),

organizational behavior (like employee engagement),

sociology (like civic engagement), and marketing (like

customer engagement; Ahn & Back, 2018; Hollebeek,

Srivastava, & Chen, 2019b 2014; So et al., ; Verhoef,

Reinartz, & Kraﬀt, 2010), its dynamics in particular set-

tings such as tourism remain nebulous (Harrigan et al.,

2018 2019 2014; Rather, Hollebeek et al., ; Taheri et al., ).

The conceptualization and dimensionality of CE have

been a key topic of discussion. Based on diﬀerent theo-

retical viewpoints, few researchers suggest customer

engagement to encompass both in-role and extra-role

consumer emotions, cognitions and behaviors (Islam

et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2019), whereas other authors

restrict its scope to extra-role merely (e.g. helping beha-

viors/consumer citizenship (Van Doorn et al., 2010). The

present employs the former perspective which provides

a most inﬂuential, inclusive outlook of customer engage-

ment (e.g. Harrigan et al., 2018 2014; Hollebeek et al., ,

2019). Similarly, given its interactive theoretical roots

(Brodie et al., 2011), customer engagement has been

viewed from relationship marketing perspectives

(Rather, 2018a) and SD logic perspectives (Hollebeek

et al., 2019b). These authors view customer engagement

as customers’ resource investments in their interactions

(Kumar et al., 2019), which is highly relevant in tourism

destination marketing.

Relatedly, there is no consent about CE’s deﬁnition. For

example, Brodie et al. (2011, p. 258) deﬁned CE as “a psy-

chological state, which occurs by virtue of interactive cus-

tomer experiences with a focal object (e.g. a brand/

destination)”. Van Doorn et al. (2010, p. 254) deﬁned CE as

“behaviors that go beyond transactions and may be speci-

ﬁ ﬁcally de ned as a customer’s behavioral manifestations

that have a brand or ﬁrm focus, beyond purchase, resulting

from motivational drivers”. Hollebeek et al. (2014, p. 154)

deﬁne it as “a consumer’s positively valenced brand-related

18 R. A. RATHER

cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity during or

related to focal consumer/brand interactions”. Regardless

of these diﬀerences, CE has been widely viewed to include

aﬀective, cognitive and behavioral dimensions, thus reveal-

ing its multidimensional aspect (Harrigan et al., 2018;

Hollebeek et al., 2014; Taheri et al., 2014). Consequently,

omission of CE’s psychological aspects or behavioral activ-

ities would likely provide insuﬃcient insight to properly

investigate the concept (Ahn & Back, 2018; Hollebeek

et al., 2014). Although, neither the behavioral activities nor

psychological aspects alone reﬂect the CE in full. True CE

should reveal the psychological connection in addition to

interactive behavioral participation towards the brand/

object (Ahn & Back, 2018 2019; Rather, Hollebeek et al., ).

Thus, this study employs three-dimensional (cognitive,

aﬀective, and behavioral) CE in this study (Ahn & Back,

2018 2014; Hollebeek et al., ). Relatedly, cognitive CE refers

to “a consumer’s level of brand-related thought processing

and elaboration in a particular consumer/brand interac-

tion”. Secondly, aﬀective CE is deﬁned as “a consumer’s

degree of positive brand-related aﬀect in a particular con-

sumer/brand interaction”. Thirdly, behavioral CE refers to “a

consumer’s level of energy, eﬀort and time spent on

a brand in a particular consumer/brand interaction”

(Hollebeek et al., 2014, p. 6).

Given the interactive aspect of customer engagement,

it has speciﬁc signiﬁcance towards service context which

is typiﬁed by high customer–brand interaction (e.g.

Hollebeek & Macky, 2019; Islam et al., 2019; Rather,

Hollebeek et al., 2019). For instance, tourists are looking

for transformative, engaging, interactive, and enjoyable

activities, often surrounding temporary modes of being.

On the basis of these features, customer engagement

has been generally examined via service-dominant (SD)

logic, which alike CE emphasizes the improvement of

perceived value by virtue of interactivity (see Brodie

et al., 2011 2019b 2019; Hollebeek et al., ; Islam et al., ).

CE as an antecedent of customer experience

Customer experience or CX acts as a crucial driver of com-

petitive advantage and commercial success (Kim & Chen,

2019 2016; Lemon & Verhoef, ). Regarding marketing – spe-

ciﬁcally tourism destination services practitioners and aca-

demics settle that focusing on CX is helpful and may

generate a sustainable and unique advantage for any

brand (or destination) (Sharma & Nayak, 2019; Song et al.,

2015; Tsaur et al., 2007). Thus, deﬁning CX concept and

ascertaining how to measure it is crucial for marketing

(Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Sharma & Nayak, 2019). For exam-

ple, CX involves emotional and rational evaluations (Brun

et al., 2017 2016), that, for Lemon and Verhoef ( ), could be

extended to other spiritual, sensory, and physical aspects.

CX as a broad construct includes three typical phases of

purchase e.g. pre-purchase, purchase and post-purchase.

Thus, it is a process which amalgamates cognitive as well as

aﬀective components (Verhoef et al., 2009). Homburg,

Schwemmle, and Kuehnl (2015, p. 8) deﬁne CX as “the

evolvement of a person’s sensorial, aﬀective, cognitive,

relational and behavioural responses to a brand by living

through a journey of touch points along pre-purchase,

purchase and post-purchase and continually judging this

journey against response thresholds of co-occurring experi-

ences.” Lemon and Verhoef (2016)assertthat CX resultsdue

to the interaction between the consumer and parts/ele-

ments of ﬁrm, like services, products, or employees.

Experience is speciﬁc to each consumer; thus, it is

a personal experience with distinct levels of involvement

including emotional, sensorial, rational, physical, and

spiritual.

Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello (2009, p. 54) argue

that “customer experience . . . diﬀers from motivational

concepts, such as involvement,” thus further di erenti-ﬀ

ates brand/customer experience from customer engage-

ment’s motivational aspect (Hollebeek & Macky, 2019). In

spite of such diﬀerences, both CX and CE ﬁt in

a relational paradigm that aims to optimize consumer–

brand interactions from consumer and company view-

points (e.g. Islam et al., 2019). Eventually, customer

engagement’s intra-interaction focus ends in

a particular brand experience (e.g. Hollebeek &

Andreassen, 2019, Islam et al., 2019). Engaged customers

are expected to play a key role in cocreating customer

experience and value (Brakus et al., 2009; Lemon &

Verhoef, 2016). Furthermore, customer engagement s’

inﬂuence on experience is addressed in hotel contexts

(Islam et al., 2019), and online branding literature

(Hollebeek et al., 2014). Therefore, regardless of concep-

tual assertions of customer engagement’s inﬂuence on

CX, this relationship is yet to be investigated empirically

as for our best knowledge. In response to this gap, we

aim to investigate this association in tourism destination

marketing context. This research proposes CE’s dimen-

sions (i.e. cognitive, aﬀective and behavioral) as impor-

tant predictors of customer experience with tourism

destinations/sites. Thus:

H1: Cognitive CE with the tourism destination positively

inﬂuences customer experience.

H2: Aﬀective CE with the tourism destination positively

inﬂuences customer experience.

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 19

H3: Behavioral CE with the tourism destination positively

inﬂuences customer experience.

Customer identiﬁcation as a consequence of CE

Social identity theory or SIT is a key theoretical underpin-

ning for marketing based customer identiﬁcation (Hultman

et al., 2015; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Rather, Tehseen, &

Parrey, 2018). Based on SIT, customer–brand identiﬁcation

or customer identiﬁcation denotes a consumer’s psycholo-

gical state of feeling, perceiving and valuing their belong-

ingness with the oﬀering/brand (Rather & Hollebeek, 2019).

SIT proposes that individuals can spend substantial eﬀorts

to build their own social identity, besides their personal

identity (e.g. Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Rather, Tehseen,

Itoo, & Parrey, 2019). These claims also ﬁt with social

exchange theory or SET that focus on individuals’ likely

rewards from their social eﬀorts (Hollebeek, 2011), thus

revealing a proper linkage between these perspectives as

employed in the present research. Researchers

applied identiﬁcation to consumer–brand relationships

(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003 2019; Rather & Hollebeek, ).

These researchers contend that consumers have social as

well as personal identities which collectively contribute to

their self-images. Customers engage in a matching process

to identify oﬀerings or brands which are congruent with

their sense of self (Escalas, 2004 2015; Hultman et al., ). In

line with this, Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg (2009)

argue the customer–brand engagement (CBE) in self-

concept construct, wherein CE and customers’ identiﬁca-

tion are linked. Hollebeek et al. (2014) ponder consumer

self-brand connection (SBC) as a consequence of CE that

develops from consumers’ particular interactive brand

experiences. The connections that customers generate

between a brand (e.g. destination) and their own identity

are known as customer identiﬁcation. Consequently, desti-

nation brand/s is believed to be most important the more

closely they link to self (Kumar & Kaushik, 2018). Coherent

with the literature, this study advocates that cognitive,

aﬀective, and emotional CE will persuade customer’s iden-

tiﬁcation. For instance, Hollebeek et al. (2014) suggested

that consumers’ cognitive and aﬀective CE in social media

serve to predict customer’s self-brand connection and

identiﬁcation towards the oﬀering/brand. Relatedly,

Harrigan et al. (2018) propose that customers engage

actively towards social media tourism brands, and their

self-brand connection and/or identiﬁcation is reinforced.

Clearly, this connects their brand to the customer’s identity.

As social exchange theory (SIT) implies that customers

would invest resources only when the exchange creates

value for them (e.g. status, aﬃliation, identiﬁcation;

Hollebeek, 2011 2019; Rather & Hollebeek, ). Consumers

exchange, economic, social, emotional, cognitive, and phy-

sical resources with service marketers (e.g. Hollebeek, 2011;

Rather, 2018a). For customer engagement to persist both

consumer and marketer have to state that it is equivalent

(Harrigan et al., 2018; Rather, 2018a), deﬁning customer

engagement as a social exchange. These claims imply

that when tourists are engaged, they tend to identify

themselves towards the destination/brand. Hence, higher

the customer’s cognitive, aﬀective and behavioral engage-

ment, higher is the customer’s identiﬁcation with the des-

tination brand. Therefore, it is hypothesized:

H4: Cognitive CE with the tourism destination positively

aﬀects customer identi cation.ﬁ

H5: Aﬀective CE with the tourism destination positively

a cation.ﬀects customer identiﬁ

H6: Behavioral CE with the tourism destination positively

a cation.ﬀects customer identiﬁ

Behavioural intention as a consequence of

customer identi cationﬁ

Oliver (1997, p. 28) deﬁned behavioral intention as

a “stated likelihood to engage in a behavior”. Zeithaml,

Berry, and Parasuraman (1996) conceptualize four types

of behavioral loyalty including purchase intention, price

sensitivity, complaining behavior and word-of-mouth.

Understanding how brands aﬀect consumer behavioral

intention is key, as it is an indicator of actual ensuing

consumption behavior (Ahn & Back, 2018; Coudounaris

& Sthapit, 2017; Rather & Hollebeek, 2019; Zeithaml et al.,

1996). Strong customer’s identiﬁcation can prove vital for

developing long-term relationships (Bhattacharya & Sen,

2003; Rather, 2017, 2018b; Rather & Hollebeek, 2019),

such as by aﬀecting brand re-buying intentions. Further,

researchers recommend that identiﬁcation increases cus-

tomers’ resistance towards switching brands (Lam,

Ahearne, Hu, & Schillewaert, 2010). In nation-brand set-

tings, people who articulated higher identiﬁcation

towards nation as a brand were most expected to visit

and/or revisit the destination in future (Stokburger-Sauer,

2011). Through social identity theory-based insights, cus-

tomer identiﬁcation could be employed to enlighten var-

ious consumer-based consequences, including customer–

brand loyalty (Rather & Hollebeek, 2019). Thus, the cur-

rent research proposes that tourists build heightened

loyalty with tourism destination by re-visiting it in the

nearby future if they cater to build a strong relationship

20 R. A. RATHER

and identiﬁcation with that speciﬁc tourism destination.

Hence, it is assumed that:

H7: Customer identiﬁcation with the tourism destination

positively aﬀects behavioural intention.

Behavioural intention as a consequence of

customer experience

Prior research has examined customer experience in zoos

(e.g. Tsaur et al., 2007), travel agencies (Rajaobelina, ),2018

wineries (Lee & Chang, 2012), resorts (Ahn & Back, 2018),

theme parks (e.g. Kao, Huang, & Wu, 2008), and yoga

tourism (Sharma & Nayak, 2019), to name a few.

Experience has also been used in tourism. For example,

previous research indicates that experiential marketing

positively eﬀects tourist emotions, satisfaction, and beha-

vioural intent in zoos (Lee & Chang, 2012; Tsaur et al.,

2007) and customers with a better experience tend to

recommend the ﬁrm to others. Therefore, we postulate

that customers develop strong loyalty (revisit) intentions

toward a destination if they have a positive experience

with that destination. Recently, Sharma and Nayak (2019)

also found the inﬂuence of memorable tourism experi-

ences on tourist’s behaviour via destination image and

tourist’s satisfaction. In the same way, CE is likely to estab-

lish the core relationship marketing tenets of consumer/

tourist retention, loyalty and repeat patronage through

inﬂuencing CX (Verhoef et al., 2009, 2010). Hence, acquir-

ing support from the literature presented above, it is

presumed in a tourist destination that:

H8: Customer experience with the tourism destination

positively aﬀects behavioural intention.

Diﬀerences between ﬁrst-time and repeat

visitors

Diﬀerence between ﬁrst-time visitors and repeat visitors in

terms of customer-based outcomes including experience,

identiﬁcation, loyalty and satisfaction is questionable (Chua

et al., 2017 2019; Shavanddasht & Allan, ). In tourist destina-

tion context, few research works indicated that ﬁrst-time

customers showed a higher satisfaction level towards

a destination compared to repeat customers (e.g. Liu

et al., 2012 2019; Shavanddasht & Allan, ), other research

studies indicated that the levels of satisfaction and loyalty

of repeat tourists have been more compared to ﬁrst-time

tourists (Li et al., 2008). Research established that ﬁrst-time

customers are most expected in search of diﬀerent experi-

ences (e.g. Liu et al., 2012). First-time customers explore the

tourism destination extensively, whereas repeat-tourists

explore it more intensively, spending more time at sites/

places by visiting smaller number of sites/places (Liu et al.,

2012). Moreover, ﬁrst-time tourists start to gather informa-

tion earlier than repeat tourists (Li et al., 2008). In making

travel decisions, ﬁrst-time tourists depend highly on recom-

mendations from friends, family, and travel professionals

(e.g. Li et al., 2008 2004). Lehto, O’Leary, and Morrison ( )

examined the eﬀects of prior experience on vacation beha-

vior. They assert that repeat-trip varies from regular service/

product re-purchases as prior-trip experiences can’t be

duplicated. Further, a more diﬀerentiated and complex

brand image and identiﬁcation of tourism site builds

once tourists spend some amount of time there (e.g.

Fakeye & Crompton, 1991 2004; Lehto et al., ). Likewise,

Wang (2004) claims that repeat-tourists are more involved

in local life-linked activities, engaged in smaller number of

activities and tend to stay longer than ﬁrst-time tourists. In

addition, while making travel decisions, repeat tourists

depend largely on their personal experiences compared

to other information sources, and thereby spent smaller

amount of time on travel planning (e.g. Li et al., 2008).

Hence, attaining support from the literature presented

above, this study proposed that:

H9: There is a signiﬁcant diﬀerence between rst-timeﬁ

tourists and repeat tourists.

Methodology

Research site

Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is the northern-most state of

India placed in the Himalayan Mountains. J&K is home to

various valleys like the Kashmir valley, Chenab valley, Sindh

valley, and Lidder valley. The famous and major tourism

sites/destinations of J&K, includes Srinagar, Gulmarg,

Phalgam, Kokernag, Daksum, and Jammu, were selected

as the study settings for this research due to various rea-

sons. Firstly, as mentioned, these sites/places provide pop-

ular tourism destinations in India. Secondly, these

attractions/destinations are well-renowned tourist spots,

which oﬀer leisure, recreation, cultural, adventure, religious

and other attractions, thus providing broad insight into

consumer behaviors and motivations. Thirdly, in India, the

tourism industry oﬀers a growing and substantive contri-

bution to employment and gross domestic product (IBEF,

2019; UNWTO, 2017). Finally, the strong level of customer-

provider interactivity in tourism makes the signiﬁcance of

investigating relational concepts, like customer engage-

ment and experience (Ahn & Back, 2018; Hollebeek &

Rather, 2019; Taheri et al., 2014).

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 21

Sampling and data collection

Using self-administrated survey technique, data were col-

lected from a major tourist destination that includes

Srinagar, Gulmarg, Kokernag, Daksum, Jammu, and

Phalgam in Jammu and Kashmir, India. Both domestic

and international tourists visiting these destinations

were targeted to conduct the survey. Convenience sam-

pling has been used to choose the participants for this

research (Parrey, Hakim, & Rather, 2019; Taheri et al.,

2014). Questionnaire was pre-tested with a convenience

sample of 40 participants in 10 days. On the basis of

results, relevant items were modiﬁed as required to

ensure the clarity of items. Results showed no concerns

about the readability of questionnaire. In the ﬁnal study,

participants were asked to rate the items on 7-point Likert

scales ranged from 1 = strongly-disagree to 7 = strongly-

agree. Data have been collected from the tourists with the

help of four eld investigators. The whole process of dataﬁ

collection has been examined personally by the author.

Data have been collected mostly during holidays, winter

and summer periods when huge numbers of domestic as

well as international visitors visiting at the above men-

tioned major tourism destinations. The surveys were con-

ducted during the period of December 1 2018 to May 31

2019. Surveyors approached tourists in the major areas

where the possibility of ﬁnding tourists was maximum like

hotels, bus stands, railway stations, relaxation spots, and

destination sites. This technique was often used by many

studies (e.g. Bryce et al., 2015; Sharma & Nayak, 2019).

Surveyors approached travelers and requested a few

screening questions (like, are you a tourist? and your

main purpose of visiting the speciﬁc destination?). It facil-

itates to determine the respondents' suitability in line with

the objectives of this research. Those suitable visitors who

joined eagerly in the survey have been requested to recall

their latest tourism destination experience in selected

tourism destinations. On an average, the participants

take nearly 10 minutes to complete the questionnaires.

Based on the ratio of sample size to variables/items

under examination, the present research estimated the

required sample size (Hair, Anderson, Babin, & Black,

2010). For that reason, 5:1 ratio is regarded as minimum;

10:1 ratio is suggested as most acceptable; and 20:1 ratio

is regarded as the more desired (Hair et al., 2010). As 29

variables/items investigated in the present study,

a sample size of minimum 580 (i.e. 29 * 20 = 580) has

been considered as adequate (Hair et al., 2010). For data

collection, 600 customers have been approached. Five

hundred and thirty visitors/customers ﬁlled their ques-

tionnaires and send back it to ﬁeld investigator. Out of

530 ﬁlled questionnaires received from participants, 10

were deleted owing to the existence of outliers and

missing values. At last, 520 questionnaires were retained

for ﬁnal examination that resulted in 83.67% of response

rate (i.e. 520/600 = 83.67%). The descriptive analyses

revealed that 56% of sample were male and 44% female.

An examination of the respondents’ age shows that 31%

were 20–30 years, 20% of respondents were 31–49 years,

29% of respondents were 41–50 years, while 20% were

above 51 years. With respect to respondents' educational

qualiﬁcation, 10% had matriculation degree, and 40% had

graduation and post-graduation degrees, respectively.

With respect to travel purposes, 70% were leisure, recrea-

tional, and adventure visitors, followed by 20% religious

visitors, and 10% business clients. Moreover, 51% of visi-

tors were ﬁrst-time and 49% were repeat visitors.

The sample proﬁle of tourist/respondents is indicated

in Table 1.

Measures

A questionnaire was adopted to measure the variables

or constructs enclosed in the proposed conceptual fra-

mework, as shown in Figure 1. The conceptualization of

brand or customer experience is based on the strategic

marketing management literature (Brakus et al., 2009;

Pine & Gilmore, 1998 1999a 1999b; Schmitt, , ) where the

concept has been considered as a vital element for

theory construction and testing. The construct has its

origins in Brakus et al. (2009) original brand experience

scale but has been adapted to this research based on

Tsaur et al.’s (2007) more tourism speci ve-ﬁc ﬁ

dimensional conceptualization of ,customer experience

including sense, relate, feel, think, and act. The customer

experience dimensions were captured with 12 items in

total. A sample item includes: “I would like to share what

I experienced in this destination”. Customer engagement

Table 1. Sample pro le.ﬁ

Variables Categories

Respondents’

proportion

Respondents

(n = 520)

Gender Male 56% 292

Female 44% 228

Age (years) 20 – 30 31% 162

31 – 40 20% 104

41 – 50 29% 150

Above 51 20% 104

Qualiﬁcation Matriculation 10% 52

Graduation 40% 208

Post-graduation 40% 208

Others 10% 52

Reasons for

travelling

Leisure 40% 208

Adventure 30% 156

Religious 20% 104

Business 10% 52

Visitation

status

First time visit 51% 266

Repeat visit 49% 254

22 R. A. RATHER

was measured by employing Hollebeek et al.’s (2014)

ten-item multidimensional scale with a sample item:

“Using this tourism destination stimulates my interest to

learn more about this destination”. Customer identi cationﬁ

was gauged by using Kumar and Kaushik (2018) four-

item scale. A sample item includes: “If a story in the media

criticized this destination, I would feel embarrassed”.

Finally, behavioral Intention items were sourced from

Coudounaris and Sthapit’ s (2017) three-item tourism-

based scale, with a sample item reading: “Visit this desti-

nation more in the next few years.” All the variables and

measurement items are presented in Appendix A.

Common method bias testing

Common method bias (CMB) may be problematic in

cross-sectional studies (Podsakoﬀ, MacKenzie, Lee, &

Podsakoﬀ, 2003). Thus, this study employed Podsakoﬀ

et al.’s (2003) method to prove the presence of common

method bias in survey data. Firstly, the con dentialityﬁ

and anonymity of participants were maintained.

Secondly, CMB is unlikely if correlations are not very

high (below 0.9; Hair et al., 2010). In Table 3, correlation

matrix indicates that the lack of very high correlation

values in survey data, thereby common method bias is

not an issue in this study.

Analysis and results

Measurement model

Data analysis was conducted by employing a two-stage

structural equation modelling technique that is con r-ﬁ

matory factor analysis or CFA followed by structural

equation modeling or SEM (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).

Software AMOS 20.0 has been utilized to examine the

proposed relationships. First, conﬁrmatory factor

analysis has been employed to assess the psychometric

properties of the variables/constructs (Table 2). Survey

data have been tested for the measurement adequacy

and underlying factor structure. Initially, standardized

factor loadings (SFLs) for all items/indicators were eval-

uated to verify if the items load on their own constructs.

The results signify the substantial convergent validity,

where SFLs are above 0.70 (e.g. Hair et al., 2010). Further,

Cronbach’s alpha value is in the acceptable range (0.-

901–0.945) in accordance with the threshold; greaterα

than 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010), verifying strong reliability.

Constructs internal consistency is assessed due to values

of composite reliability (CR) that fall in the suggested

limit i.e. CR above 0.70 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Average

variance extracted or AVE for each construct maintains

the convergent validity. The criterion value for AVE

should be greater than 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)

(Table 2). Moreover, all the inter-construct correlations

are below 1, hence supporting the discriminant validity

of the study (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminant valid-

ity was further ascertained to compare the square root

value of AVE score of each factor/construct (Table 3) with

inter-construct correlations (e.g. Hair et al., 2010).

Subsequently, this study generated a CFA model com-

posed of six constructs with all the 29 indicators/items

and the model attained a reasonable ﬁt: χ

= 252.84, df =

119, χ

/d. f. = 2.12, NFI = .94, CFI = .95, GFI = 0.91, and

RMSEA = .065, in line with criterion: NFI, CFI, TLI, GFI

greater than 0.90, and RMSEA less than 0.08 (Bentler &

Bonnett, 1980).

Structural model and hypothesis testing

Second, to perform the structural analysis, this study

adopted SEM using AMOS 20.0 software. Structural

equation modeling approach facilitates the simulta-

neous estimation of relationships among various

H2 H8

H3 H7

Cognitive

Engagement

Customer

Experience

Behavioural

Intention

Behavioral

Engagement

Customer

Identification

Affective

Engagement

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 23

Bấm Tải xuống để xem toàn bộ.

| 1/19

| | Tải xuống

Preview text:

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing
ISSN: 1054-8408 (Print) 1540-7306 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttm20
Customer experience and engagement in
tourism destinations: the experiential marketing perspective Raouf Ahmad Rather
To cite this article: Raouf Ahmad Rather (2020) Customer experience and engagement in tourism
destinations: the experiential marketing perspective, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 37:1,
15-32, DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2019.1686101
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1686101 Published online: 17 Dec 2019.
Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1 View related articles View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wttm20
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 2019, VOL. 37, NO. 1, 15–32
https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1686101 ARTICLE
Customer experience and engagement in tourism destinations: the experiential marketing perspective Raouf Ahmad Rather
Department of Tourism Studies, Central University of Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmir, India ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY
Tourism destinations are increasingly oﬀering experiential services to promote the development of Received 2 August 2019
their competitive advantage. This research investigates the eﬀects of customers’ tourism engage- Revised 17 September 2019
ment with experiential marketing activities and develops and tests a framework in this area. Accepted 11 October 2019
Findings suggest that customer engagement’s dimensions exert diﬀering eﬀects on customer KEYWORDS
experience and identiﬁcation, which subsequently aﬀect behavioral intention toward destinations. Experiential marketing;
Findings also suggest the indirect eﬀects of customer engagement dimensions on behavioural customer experience;
intentions via experience and identiﬁcation. Further, ﬁndings propose the signiﬁcant diﬀerence customer engagement;
between ﬁrst-time and repeat-visitors in terms of the underlying constructs. Theoretical and identiﬁcation; behavioral
practical implications of results are discussed.
intention; ﬁrst-time visitors; repeat-visitors; destination; tourism Introduction
(2019) propose that customers don’t like to purchase
the product/s, but rather the stories behind and the
Market globalization is inﬂuencing tourism industry
experience enabled by oﬀerings.
globally. Economic downturn, intensiﬁed competition,
The reason behind the current tourism boom is
and growth of new technologies oﬀer opportunities as
a question asked by both academics and industry.
well as threats (Hollebeek & Macky, 2019; Hultman,
Experiential marketing has been derived from the experi-
Skarmeas, Oghazi, & Beheshti, 2015). Researchers con-
ence economy concept (Pine & Gilmore, 1998), that is
sider the tourism industry as a technology adoption
undoubtedly strongly present in the highly intangible
pioneer, which innovates from computerized reservation
experience economy (Le et al., 2019; Quan & Wang,
systems to new marketing practices and E-business
2004; Song et al., 2015; Tsaur, Chiu, & Wang, 2007), as
(Hultman et al., 2015). In the context of this, tourism
illustrated by Disneyland’s 1955 opening (Hannam, 2004).
service providers are promptly employing branding stra-
Therefore, what does a customer gets from tourism or
tegies parallel to those product marketers in an attempt
travel oﬀerings? First and foremost, the customer’s per-
to highlight the tourist destination uniqueness (Usakli &
ceived beneﬁts lie in experience. While economic oﬀer-
Baloglu, 2011). In accordance with these developments,
ings like goods, commodities, or services are external to
tourism destination numbers have increased to cater
customer, experiences are intrinsically personal and exist
with the fast developing demand of global tourism.
only in the customer’s minds who have been engaged on
With the help of these technologies, customers are pro-
intellectual, physical, emotional, and/or spiritual level
gressively shaping their own tourism experiences, as
(Hol ebeek, Glynn, & Brodie, 2014; Pine & Gilmore, 1998;
substantiated by Pine and Gilmore’s (1998) experiential
Tsaur et al., 2007). A delightful experience would last long
marketing perspective (Le, Scott, & Lohmann, 2019;
in customer’s minds and inﬂuence their consequent beha-
Schmitt, 1999a; Song, Ahn, & Lee, 2015). Kumar, Rajan,
viors. Consequently, managing the customer’s experien-
Gupta, and Dalla Pozza (2019) claims that the business
tial environment is a key concern for the survival and
development is shifting from products toward customer-
competitive advantage of tourism ﬁrms.
based processes. This leads Prahalad and Ramaswamy
Despite these invaluable conceptual works on the
(2003, p. 12) to propose that “a new point of view is
experience economy, empirical study remains limited.
required, one that allows individual customers to actively
One main reason probably lies in the fact that few of
construct their own consumption experiences through
these theoretical writings oﬀer an easily operationalizable
personalized interaction, thereby co-creating unique
foundation for empirical investigation (Brodie & Hollebeek,
value for themselves.” Likewise, Hollebeek and Macky CONTACT Raouf Ahmad Rather r.raouf18@gmail.com
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 16 R. A. RATHER
2011). One exception to this observation is indeed oﬀered
unknown. Addressing this research gap, this study investi-
by Pine and Gilmore (1998), which explicitly operationalizes
gates CE’s nomological network in tourism destination
the experience economy in terms of four dimensions:
marketing context. In particular, this research explores the
Escapism, esthetics, education, and entertainment. In addi-
role of CE dimensions in driving customer experience and
tion, “Given the relatively nascent state of the customer
customer identiﬁcation, and their impact on behavioral
experience (CX) literature, there is limited empirical work
intention. Moreover, various constructs and variables
directly related to customer experience and the customer
have been examined as the consequences of CE in extant
journey” (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016, p. 70). For example,
research, incorporating brand usage intention and self-
“there is a strong need to explore how extant marketing
brand connection (Hollebeek et al., 2014), brand trust and
constructs, like customer engagement (CE) and commit-
co-creation (Rather, Hollebeek, & Islam, 2019), repatronage
ment, relate to customer experience and interact with each
intent and brand experience (Islam et al., 2019), electronic
other, resulting in the overall customer experience” (Lemon
word-of-mouth (Taheri, Jafari, & O’Gorman, 2014), satisfac-
& Verhoef, 2016, p. 85). Moreover, “there is a critical need
tion and loyalty (Rather, 2018a; So et al., 2014). Although
for researchers to develop and test such an integrated
given its relative signiﬁcance, empirical research to under-
conceptual model of customer experience and the custo-
stand engagement while actually experiencing tourism
mer journey” (Homburg, Jozić & Kuehn, 2017; Lemon &
destinations/oﬀerings are scant. Thus, there are few exist-
Verhoef, 2016, p. 85). Because of the absence of sound
ing studies and none (to our knowledge) in the area of
measurement development for CX, there exists a scarcity
tourism destination marketing that explores the associa-
of research on how CX can be aﬀected and on the con-
tion between customer engagement dimensions and cus-
sequences of CX (Homburg et al., 2017; Lemon & Verhoef,
tomer experience and other related variables (e.g.
2016). Research have mostly investigated the drivers of
customer identiﬁcation, behavioral intention) that are
customer value, commitment or satisfaction (e.g. Hultman
deemed to be of interest to tourism destinations/ﬁrms.
et al., 2015; Rather & Hollebeek, 2019; Song et al., 2015) but
Further, since engaged and loyal visitors have constantly
haven’t measured CX drivers as a broad construct (Islam,
been recognized as essential factors for market segment
Hollebeek, Rahman, Khan, & Rasool, 2019; Lemon &
(Brodie & Hollebeek, 2011; Liu, Lin, & Wang, 2012), little is
Verhoef, 2016; Verhoef et al., 2009). Thus, this research
known about the diﬀerences relating to ﬁrst-time custo-
extends this gap by exploring the role of CE as a driver of
mers and repeat visitors (e.g. Chua, Lee, & Han, 2017; Li,
customer experience in a broader nomological network.
Cheng, Kim, & Petrick, 2008; Liu et al., 2012). The diﬀerences
Customer engagement/CE has transpired as a construct
between ﬁrst-time and repeat tourists are getting more
of growing relevance in topical marketing literature and as
interest from the marketing and tourism scholar’s perspec-
a new technique in fostering consumer value and under-
tive. Information regarding visitor’s status like ﬁrst-time
standing contemporary marketing (Brodie, Hollebeek,
and/or repeat tourists could be helpful in identifying
Jurić, & Ilić, 2011; Harrigan, Evers, Miles, & Daly,
a tourism destination’s position in its life cycle, signalling
2018; Hollebeek et al., 2019a; Kumar et al., 2019). The MSI
destination familiarity and market segmentation (Li et al.,
(2014–2016) and (2016–2018) positioned CE and CX as the 2008).
most signiﬁcant research challenges in upcoming years.
Recent destination marketing and management
Over the previous decade, customer engagement research
research (e.g. Chen, Drennan, Andrews, & Hollebeek,
has been performed with online foci or substantial service
2018; Hultman et al., 2015; Le et al., 2019; Rather,
(e.g. Hollebeek & Andreassen, 2018). For example, existing
Hollebeek et al., 2019; Song et al., 2015; Taheri et al.,
research has examined customer engagement in virtual/
2014) develops on conventional marketing and branding
social media brand communities (e.g. Hollebeek et al.,
literature (such as Aaker, 1997), that proposes individuals
2014), with reference to hedonic (vs. utilitarian) brands
likely to identify towards brands or destinations. Customer
(Hollebeek, 2011) and integrated resort brands (Ahn &
engagement and customer brand identiﬁcation/customer
Back, 2018), to name a few. In tourism/destination market-
identiﬁcation are critical in purchase likelihood, brand
ing and management that signiﬁes a particular service
choice, and ﬁnally success of brand (e.g. Aaker, 1997;
subsector, this research identiﬁes studies which address
Hollebeek et al., 2014; Kumar & Kaushik, 2018). An exten-
customer engagement in heritage places/sites (Bryce,
sive consent subsists in management and marketing lit-
Ross, Kevin, & Taheri, 2015), social media interactions
erature on three diﬀerent statements: (i) CE can lead to
(Harrigan et al., 2018), luxury hotel brands (Islam et al.,
sustainable competitive advantage, value-creating consu-
2019; Rather & Camilleri, 2019), and airline brands (So,
mers and develop strong loyal consumer base (ii) retain-
King, & Sparks, 2014), amongst others. In spite of extant
ing consumers is good business, and (iii) customer
insight, the role of tourism destination customer engage-
experience and identiﬁcation are main drivers for future
ment and its speciﬁc conceptual associations remain
customer behavior, particularly in tourism, in which
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 17
intangible services/oﬀerings are hard to assess before
thrill-seeking), which typically result from participation
consumption (Hultman et al., 2015; Kumar & Kaushik,
and/or direct observation in events, whether dreamlike,
2018; Kumar et al., 2019; Lemon & Verhoef, 201 ) 6 .
virtual or real (Schmitt, 1999b). In the tourism context,
Building on the above gaps, this study makes important
experience has been viewed as a subjective mental state
theoretical and managerial contributions. First, as sug-
felt by consumers (Tsaur et al., 2007). Further, experiences
gested multiple authors have called for more empirical
are normally not self-generated but induced. Experiences
studies that investigate CE phenomena, particularly in the
are linked to events which they react to. Furthermore,
tourism context (Harrigan et al., 2018; Kim & Chen, 2019; So
experiences can be described as complex, emerging
et al., 2014; Taheri et al., 2014). This research satisﬁes these
structures, that is, no two experiences are alike accurately
calls by investigating two major outcomes of customer
(e.g. Schmitt, 1999b; Tsaur et al., 2007).
engagement dimensions namely customer experience
In marketing, the idea of experience was ﬁrst discussed
and identiﬁcation and oﬀers a framework in this area.
and conceptualized in the topical work of Hirschman and
Due to this association, the present research uncovers the
Holbrook (1982), which has to turn out to be an important
insights into those CE dimensions which are more favor-
element in understanding customer behavior through the
able in building tourism customer experience and identiﬁ-
overall consumption experience (Coudounaris & Sthapit,
cation. This study thus examines the association between
2017; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). The experiential facets of
CE and CX, which although being studied conceptually so
consumption emerged at 1990s after Pine and Gilmore
far (e.g. Hollebeek, 2011; Hollebeek & Andreassen, 2018;
(1998) addressed how economies change. Economic activ-
Lemon & Verhoef, 2016), to the best of our information lags
ities intend not only for output but for experience through
behind as for empirical exploration is concerned.
consumption (Quan & Wang, 2004). Pine and Gilmore
The advancement of increased insight into customer
(1998) further advocate that experience represents
engagement’s role in inﬂuencing consumers’ overall jour-
a speciﬁc type of economic oﬀering that generates compe-
ney-linked perceptions thereby reveals a worthwhile con-
titive beneﬁt which is diﬃcult to imitate or substitute.
tribution to the marketing and management literature
Based on these developments, Hirschman and Holbrook
(Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). Second, this research tests the
(1982) and Lemon and Verhoef (2016) propose customer
mechanism through which these outcomes aﬀect beha-
experience orientation as an eminent approach for scholars
vioural intention. Third, the present research explores the
as well as marketing practitioners. Schmitt (1999a) argues
indirect eﬀects of CE including aﬀective, cognitive, and
that because traditional marketing provides a rational,
behavioral dimensions on behavioural intention through
engineering-driven and outdated, a need exists for the
customer experience and identiﬁcation in tourism destina-
development of experiential marketing. The author also
tions. Fourth, this study also intends to explore the diﬀer-
suggests that what consumer’s desire is communications,
ence between ﬁrst-time and repeat customers in terms of
products, and marketing campaigns which touch their
customer’s engagement, experience, identiﬁcation, and
hearts, overwhelm their senses, stimulate their minds and
loyalty constructs. Finally, future research directions are
include into their lifestyles. Customers thus desire for com-
discussed to address research gaps in the literature.
munications, marketing campaigns and oﬀerings to deliver
Practically, the study ﬁndings reveal that CE makes an experience.
a substantial contribution to customer experience, there-
Consequently, experiential marketing is increasingly uti-
fore revealing a superior level of managerial signiﬁcance.
lized by marketers to build experiential connections with
This study thus presumes that not only customer engage-
consumers (Homburg et al., 2017; Le et al., 2019; Schmitt,
ment should be regarded as an integrated strategic and 1999a). Schmitt 1
( 999a, 1999b) suggested the strategic
core aspects to promote increased customer experience,
experiential modules (SEMs) concept which marketing man-
but also guides to strong customer’s identiﬁcation, which
agers can adopt to generate diﬀerent kinds of CX for their
in turn eﬀects behavioural intention.
consumers (Song et al., 2015; Tsaur et al., 2007). In experi-
ential marketing, the experiential modules include aﬀective
experiences (FEEL), sensory experiences (SENSE), creative
Theoretical framework and hypotheses
cognitive experiences (THINK), behaviors and lifestyles
Experiential marketing is a rising marketing management
(ACT), social-identity experiences and physical experiences
philosophy (Le et al., 2019; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Song
which result from relating to a reference group/culture
et al., 2015; Tsaur et al., 2007), which has been shown
(RELATE). Experiential marketing aims to generate compre-
eﬀective in driving tourist behavior (Brun, Rajaobelina, hensive integrated experiences which possess
Ricard, & Berthiaume, 2017; Rather, 2018c; Sharma &
simultaneously the qualities of FEEL, SENSE, ACT, THINK,
Nayak, 2019). Experiences are private events, which hap-
and RELATE. Each of these dimensions/aspects is
pen in reply to customer’s sense(s) being stimulated (e.g. discussed below. 18 R. A. RATHER Sense marketing Relate marketing
SENSE marketing or SENSE module are focused on
RELATE marketing extends outside the customer’s pri-
senses by generating sensory experiences due to sight,
vate, personal feelings, thereby linking the customer to
taste, touch, sound, and smell. Sense is the key response
something beyond its private state. RELATE campaigns
in which one individual engages in an experiential envir-
enrich customer’s desire for self-improvement (such as
onment. SENSE marketing can be employed to distin-
a future “ideal self”, which she/he desires to relate to).
guish ﬁrms, products, and brands (e.g. destinations) to
Relate appeal to the need to be recognized positively by
motivate consumers by adding value to products/ser-
others like one’s family, peers, and colleagues (Schmitt,
vices (e.g. through excitement or aesthetics) (Schmitt,
1999a). They relate the visitors to a large social system 1999a; Tsaur et al., 2007).
like sub-culture, a country, so on (Tsaur et al., 2007). Feel marketing Customer engagement
FEEL marketing enriches consumer’s emotions and
Although the engagement concept is examined across
inner feelings by generating aﬀective experiences
ﬁelds including psychology (such as task engagement),
which range from slightly positive moods related to
organizational behavior (like employee engagement),
a brand/destination (e.g. for a non-involving) to
sociology (like civic engagement), and marketing (like
strong feelings/emotions of pride and joy (e.g. for
customer engagement; Ahn & Back, 2018; Hollebeek,
a customer durable, social marketing campaign or
Srivastava, & Chen, 2019b; So et al., 2014; Verhoef, technology) (Schmitt, 1999a).
Reinartz, & Kraﬀt, 2010), its dynamics in particular set-
tings such as tourism remain nebulous (Harrigan et al.,
2018; Rather, Hollebeek et al., 2019; Taheri et al., 2014). Think marketing
The conceptualization and dimensionality of CE have
been a key topic of discussion. Based on diﬀerent theo-
THINK marketing appeals to the intellect by generating
retical viewpoints, few researchers suggest customer
problem-solving, cognitive experiences, which engage con-
engagement to encompass both in-role and extra-role
sumes creatively. In tourism, one of the objectives is har-
consumer emotions, cognitions and behaviors (Islam
mony. It proposes that the tourism destination authority
et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2019), whereas other authors
allocates itself to harmonizing the relationship between
restrict its scope to extra-role merely (e.g. helping beha-
nature and humankind. In tourism, various educational
viors/consumer citizenship (Van Doorn et al., 2010). The
tours accumulate the ideas of environmental security
present employs the former perspective which provides
on the explanation boards to engage its visitor’s divergent
a most inﬂuential, inclusive outlook of customer engage-
and convergent thinking via surprise, intrigue, and
ment (e.g. Harrigan et al., 2018; Hollebeek et al., 2014,
provocation (Tsaur et al., 2007). Such reconsiderations cre-
2019). Similarly, given its interactive theoretical roots
ate the problem-solving and cognitive experiences for its
(Brodie et al., 2011), customer engagement has been customers/visitors. viewed from relationship marketing perspectives
(Rather, 2018a) and SD logic perspectives (Hollebeek
et al., 2019b). These authors view customer engagement Act marketing
as customers’ resource investments in their interactions
ACT marketing appeals consumer’s lives by focusing their
(Kumar et al., 2019), which is highly relevant in tourism
physical experiences, showing customers alternative life- destination marketing.
styles and interactions, alternative ways of doing things.
Relatedly, there is no consent about CE’s deﬁnition. For
Rational perspectives to behaviour change (e.g. theories
example, Brodie et al. (2011, p. 258) deﬁned CE as “a psy-
of reasoned actions) are just one of the several behavioural
chological state, which occurs by virtue of interactive cus-
change alternatives (Schmitt, 1999a). Changes in beha-
tomer experiences with a focal object (e.g. a brand/
viours and lifestyles are usually most inspirational, emo-
destination)”. Van Doorn et al. (2010, p. 254) deﬁned CE as
tional and motivational and normally inspired by
“behaviors that go beyond transactions and may be speci-
exemplars like athletes or movie stars. In tourism, customers ﬁcally d ﬁ
e ned as a customer’s behavioral manifestations
understand ways to appreciate focal objects (like other
that have a brand or ﬁrm focus, beyond purchase, resulting
customers) and change their lifestyles and attitudes (Tsaur
from motivational drivers”. Hollebeek et al. (2014, p. 154) et al., 2007).
deﬁne it as “a consumer’s positively valenced brand-related
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 19
cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity during or
et al., 2017), that, for Lemon and Verhoef 2 ( 016), could be
related to focal consumer/brand interactions”. Regardless
extended to other spiritual, sensory, and physical aspects.
of these diﬀerences, CE has been widely viewed to include
CX as a broad construct includes three typical phases of
aﬀective, cognitive and behavioral dimensions, thus reveal-
purchase e.g. pre-purchase, purchase and post-purchase.
ing its multidimensional aspect (Harrigan et al., 2018;
Thus, it is a process which amalgamates cognitive as well as
Hollebeek et al., 2014; Taheri et al., 2014). Consequently,
aﬀective components (Verhoef et al., 2009). Homburg,
omission of CE’s psychological aspects or behavioral activ-
Schwemmle, and Kuehnl (2015, p. 8) deﬁne CX as “the
ities would likely provide insuﬃcient insight to properly
evolvement of a person’s sensorial, aﬀective, cognitive,
investigate the concept (Ahn & Back, 2018; Hollebeek
relational and behavioural responses to a brand by living
et al., 2014). Although, neither the behavioral activities nor
through a journey of touch points along pre-purchase,
psychological aspects alone reﬂect the CE in full. True CE
purchase and post-purchase and continually judging this
should reveal the psychological connection in addition to
journey against response thresholds of co-occurring experi-
interactive behavioral participation towards the brand/
ences.” Lemon and Verhoef (2016) assert that CX results due
object (Ahn & Back, 2018; Rather, Hollebeek et al., 2019).
to the interaction between the consumer and parts/ele-
Thus, this study employs three-dimensional (cognitive,
ments of ﬁrm, like services, products, or employees.
aﬀective, and behavioral) CE in this study (Ahn & Back,
Experience is speciﬁc to each consumer; thus, it is
2018; Hollebeek et al., 2014). Relatedly, cognitive CE refers
a personal experience with distinct levels of involvement
to “a consumer’s level of brand-related thought processing
including emotional, sensorial, rational, physical, and
and elaboration in a particular consumer/brand interac- spiritual.
tion”. Secondly, aﬀective CE is deﬁned as “a consumer’s
Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello (2009, p. 54) argue
degree of positive brand-related aﬀect in a particular con-
that “customer experience . . . diﬀers from motivational
sumer/brand interaction”. Thirdly, behavioral CE refers to “a
concepts, such as involvement,” thus further diﬀerenti-
consumer’s level of energy, eﬀort and time spent on
ates brand/customer experience from customer engage-
a brand in a particular consumer/brand interaction”
ment’s motivational aspect (Hollebeek & Macky, 2019). In
(Hollebeek et al., 2014, p. 6).
spite of such diﬀerences, both CX and CE ﬁt in
Given the interactive aspect of customer engagement,
a relational paradigm that aims to optimize consumer–
it has speciﬁc signiﬁcance towards service context which
brand interactions from consumer and company view-
is typiﬁed by high customer–brand interaction (e.g.
points (e.g. Islam et al., 2019). Eventually, customer
Hollebeek & Macky, 2019; Islam et al., 2019; Rather, engagement’s intra-interaction focus ends in
Hollebeek et al., 2019). For instance, tourists are looking
a particular brand experience (e.g. Hollebeek &
for transformative, engaging, interactive, and enjoyable
Andreassen, 2019, Islam et al., 2019). Engaged customers
activities, often surrounding temporary modes of being.
are expected to play a key role in cocreating customer
On the basis of these features, customer engagement
experience and value (Brakus et al., 2009; Lemon &
has been generally examined via service-dominant (SD)
Verhoef, 2016). Furthermore, customer engagement’s
logic, which alike CE emphasizes the improvement of
inﬂuence on experience is addressed in hotel contexts
perceived value by virtue of interactivity (see Brodie
(Islam et al., 2019), and online branding literature
et al., 2011; Hollebeek et al., 2019b; Islam et al., 2019).
(Hollebeek et al., 2014). Therefore, regardless of concep-
tual assertions of customer engagement’s inﬂuence on
CX, this relationship is yet to be investigated empirically
CE as an antecedent of customer experience
as for our best knowledge. In response to this gap, we
Customer experience or CX acts as a crucial driver of com-
aim to investigate this association in tourism destination
petitive advantage and commercial success (Kim & Chen,
marketing context. This research proposes CE’s dimen-
2019; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). Regarding marketing – spe-
sions (i.e. cognitive, aﬀective and behavioral) as impor-
ciﬁcally tourism destination services practitioners and aca-
tant predictors of customer experience with tourism
demics settle that focusing on CX is helpful and may destinations/sites. Thus:
generate a sustainable and unique advantage for any
brand (or destination) (Sharma & Nayak, 2019; Song et al.,
H1: Cognitive CE with the tourism destination positively
2015; Tsaur et al., 2007). Thus, deﬁning CX concept and
inﬂuences customer experience.
ascertaining how to measure it is crucial for marketing
(Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Sharma & Nayak, 2019). For exam-
H2: Aﬀective CE with the tourism destination positively
ple, CX involves emotional and rational evaluations (Brun
inﬂuences customer experience. 20 R. A. RATHER
H3: Behavioral CE with the tourism destination positively
value for them (e.g. status, aﬃliation, identiﬁcation;
inﬂuences customer experience.
Hollebeek, 2011; Rather & Hollebeek, 2019). Consumers
exchange, economic, social, emotional, cognitive, and phy-
sical resources with service marketers (e.g. Hollebeek, 2011;
Rather, 2018a). For customer engagement to persist both
Customer identiﬁcation as a consequence of CE
consumer and marketer have to state that it is equivalent
(Harrigan et al., 2018; Rather, 2018a), deﬁning customer
Social identity theory or SIT is a key theoretical underpin-
engagement as a social exchange. These claims imply
ning for marketing based customer identiﬁcation (Hultman
that when tourists are engaged, they tend to identify
et al., 2015; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Rather, Tehseen, &
themselves towards the destination/brand. Hence, higher
Parrey, 2018). Based on SIT, customer–brand identiﬁcation
the customer’s cognitive, aﬀective and behavioral engage-
or customer identiﬁcation denotes a consumer’s psycholo-
ment, higher is the customer’s identiﬁcation with the des-
gical state of feeling, perceiving and valuing their belong-
tination brand. Therefore, it is hypothesized:
ingness with the oﬀering/brand (Rather & Hollebeek, 2019).
SIT proposes that individuals can spend substantial eﬀorts
H4: Cognitive CE with the tourism destination positively
to build their own social identity, besides their personal
aﬀects customer identiﬁcation.
identity (e.g. Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Rather, Tehseen,
Itoo, & Parrey, 2019). These claims also ﬁt with social
H5: Aﬀective CE with the tourism destination positively
exchange theory or SET that focus on individuals’ likely
aﬀects customer identiﬁcation.
rewards from their social eﬀorts (Hollebeek, 2011), thus
revealing a proper linkage between these perspectives as
H6: Behavioral CE with the tourism destination positively employed in the present research. Researchers
aﬀects customer identiﬁcation.
applied identiﬁcation to consumer–brand relationships
(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Rather & Hollebeek, 2019).
Behavioural intention as a consequence of
These researchers contend that consumers have social as customer identiﬁcation
well as personal identities which collectively contribute to
their self-images. Customers engage in a matching process
Oliver (1997, p. 28) deﬁned behavioral intention as
to identify oﬀerings or brands which are congruent with
a “stated likelihood to engage in a behavior”. Zeithaml,
their sense of self (Escalas, 2004; Hultman et al., 2015). In
Berry, and Parasuraman (1996) conceptualize four types
line with this, Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg (2009)
of behavioral loyalty including purchase intention, price
argue the customer–brand engagement (CBE) in self-
sensitivity, complaining behavior and word-of-mouth.
concept construct, wherein CE and customers’ identiﬁca-
Understanding how brands aﬀect consumer behavioral
tion are linked. Hollebeek et al. (2014) ponder consumer
intention is key, as it is an indicator of actual ensuing
self-brand connection (SBC) as a consequence of CE that
consumption behavior (Ahn & Back, 2018; Coudounaris
develops from consumers’ particular interactive brand
& Sthapit, 2017; Rather & Hollebeek, 2019; Zeithaml et al.,
experiences. The connections that customers generate
1996). Strong customer’s identiﬁcation can prove vital for
between a brand (e.g. destination) and their own identity
developing long-term relationships (Bhattacharya & Sen,
are known as customer identiﬁcation. Consequently, desti-
2003; Rather, 2017, 2018b; Rather & Hollebeek, 2019),
nation brand/s is believed to be most important the more
such as by aﬀecting brand re-buying intentions. Further,
closely they link to self (Kumar & Kaushik, 2018). Coherent
researchers recommend that identiﬁcation increases cus-
with the literature, this study advocates that cognitive,
tomers’ resistance towards switching brands (Lam,
aﬀective, and emotional CE will persuade customer’s iden-
Ahearne, Hu, & Schillewaert, 2010). In nation-brand set-
tiﬁcation. For instance, Hollebeek et al. (2014) suggested
tings, people who articulated higher identiﬁcation
that consumers’ cognitive and aﬀective CE in social media
towards nation as a brand were most expected to visit
serve to predict customer’s self-brand connection and
and/or revisit the destination in future (Stokburger-Sauer,
identiﬁcation towards the oﬀering/brand. Relatedly,
2011). Through social identity theory-based insights, cus-
Harrigan et al. (2018) propose that customers engage
tomer identiﬁcation could be employed to enlighten var-
actively towards social media tourism brands, and their
ious consumer-based consequences, including customer–
self-brand connection and/or identiﬁcation is reinforced.
brand loyalty (Rather & Hollebeek, 2019). Thus, the cur-
Clearly, this connects their brand to the customer’s identity.
rent research proposes that tourists build heightened
As social exchange theory (SIT) implies that customers
loyalty with tourism destination by re-visiting it in the
would invest resources only when the exchange creates
nearby future if they cater to build a strong relationship
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 21
and identiﬁcation with that speciﬁc tourism destination.
tourism destination extensively, whereas repeat-tourists Hence, it is assumed that:
explore it more intensively, spending more time at sites/
places by visiting smaller number of sites/places (Liu et al.,
H7: Customer identiﬁcation with the tourism destination
2012). Moreover, ﬁrst-time tourists start to gather informa-
positively aﬀects behavioural intention.
tion earlier than repeat tourists (Li et al., 2008). In making
travel decisions, ﬁrst-time tourists depend highly on recom-
mendations from friends, family, and travel professionals
(e.g. Li et al., 2008). Lehto, O’Leary, and Morrison 2 ( 004)
Behavioural intention as a consequence of
examined the eﬀects of prior experience on vacation beha- customer experience
vior. They assert that repeat-trip varies from regular service/
Prior research has examined customer experience in zoos
product re-purchases as prior-trip experiences can’t be
(e.g. Tsaur et al., 2007), travel agencies (Rajaobelina, 201 ) 8 ,
duplicated. Further, a more diﬀerentiated and complex
wineries (Lee & Chang, 2012), resorts (Ahn & Back, 2018),
brand image and identiﬁcation of tourism site builds
theme parks (e.g. Kao, Huang, & Wu, 2008), and yoga
once tourists spend some amount of time there (e.g.
tourism (Sharma & Nayak, 2019), to name a few.
Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Lehto et al., 2004). Likewise,
Experience has also been used in tourism. For example,
Wang (2004) claims that repeat-tourists are more involved
previous research indicates that experiential marketing
in local life-linked activities, engaged in smaller number of
positively eﬀects tourist emotions, satisfaction, and beha-
activities and tend to stay longer than ﬁrst-time tourists. In
vioural intent in zoos (Lee & Chang, 2012; Tsaur et al.,
addition, while making travel decisions, repeat tourists
2007) and customers with a better experience tend to
depend largely on their personal experiences compared
recommend the ﬁrm to others. Therefore, we postulate
to other information sources, and thereby spent smaller
that customers develop strong loyalty (revisit) intentions
amount of time on travel planning (e.g. Li et al., 2008).
toward a destination if they have a positive experience
Hence, attaining support from the literature presented
with that destination. Recently, Sharma and Nayak (2019)
above, this study proposed that:
also found the inﬂuence of memorable tourism experi-
ences on tourist’s behaviour via destination image and
H9: There is a signiﬁcant diﬀerence between ﬁrst-time
tourist’s satisfaction. In the same way, CE is likely to estab- tourists and repeat tourists.
lish the core relationship marketing tenets of consumer/
tourist retention, loyalty and repeat patronage through Methodology
inﬂuencing CX (Verhoef et al., 2009, 2010). Hence, acquir-
ing support from the literature presented above, it is Research site
presumed in a tourist destination that:
Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is the northern-most state of
India placed in the Himalayan Mountains. J&K is home to
H8: Customer experience with the tourism destination
various valleys like the Kashmir valley, Chenab valley, Sindh
positively aﬀects behavioural intention.
valley, and Lidder valley. The famous and major tourism
sites/destinations of J&K, includes Srinagar, Gulmarg,
Diﬀerences between ﬁrst-time and repeat
Phalgam, Kokernag, Daksum, and Jammu, were selected visitors
as the study settings for this research due to various rea-
Diﬀerence between ﬁrst-time visitors and repeat visitors in
sons. Firstly, as mentioned, these sites/places provide pop-
terms of customer-based outcomes including experience,
ular tourism destinations in India. Secondly, these
identiﬁcation, loyalty and satisfaction is questionable (Chua
attractions/destinations are well-renowned tourist spots,
et al., 2017; Shavanddasht & Allan, 2019). In tourist destina-
which oﬀer leisure, recreation, cultural, adventure, religious
tion context, few research works indicated that ﬁrst-time
and other attractions, thus providing broad insight into
customers showed a higher satisfaction level towards
consumer behaviors and motivations. Thirdly, in India, the
a destination compared to repeat customers (e.g. Liu
tourism industry oﬀers a growing and substantive contri-
et al., 2012; Shavanddasht & Allan, 2019), other research
bution to employment and gross domestic product (IBEF,
studies indicated that the levels of satisfaction and loyalty
2019; UNWTO, 2017). Finally, the strong level of customer-
of repeat tourists have been more compared to ﬁrst-time
provider interactivity in tourism makes the signiﬁcance of
tourists (Li et al., 2008). Research established that ﬁrst-time
investigating relational concepts, like customer engage-
customers are most expected in search of diﬀerent experi-
ment and experience (Ahn & Back, 2018; Hollebeek &
ences (e.g. Liu et al., 2012). First-time customers explore the
Rather, 2019; Taheri et al., 2014). 22 R. A. RATHER Sampling and data collection
missing values. At last, 520 questionnaires were retained
for ﬁnal examination that resulted in 83.67% of response
Using self-administrated survey technique, data were col-
rate (i.e. 520/600 = 83.67%). The descriptive analyses
lected from a major tourist destination that includes
revealed that 56% of sample were male and 44% female.
Srinagar, Gulmarg, Kokernag, Daksum, Jammu, and
An examination of the respondents’ age shows that 31%
Phalgam in Jammu and Kashmir, India. Both domestic
were 20–30 years, 20% of respondents were 31–49 years,
and international tourists visiting these destinations
29% of respondents were 41–50 years, while 20% were
were targeted to conduct the survey. Convenience sam-
above 51 years. With respect to respondents' educational
pling has been used to choose the participants for this
qualiﬁcation, 10% had matriculation degree, and 40% had
research (Parrey, Hakim, & Rather, 2019; Taheri et al.,
graduation and post-graduation degrees, respectively.
2014). Questionnaire was pre-tested with a convenience
With respect to travel purposes, 70% were leisure, recrea-
sample of 40 participants in 10 days. On the basis of
tional, and adventure visitors, followed by 20% religious
results, relevant items were modiﬁed as required to
visitors, and 10% business clients. Moreover, 51% of visi-
ensure the clarity of items. Results showed no concerns
tors were ﬁrst-time and 49% were repeat visitors.
about the readability of questionnaire. In the ﬁnal study,
The sample proﬁle of tourist/respondents is indicated
participants were asked to rate the items on 7-point Likert in Table 1.
scales ranged from 1 = strongly-disagree to 7 = strongly-
agree. Data have been collected from the tourists with the
help of four ﬁeld investigators. The whole process of data Measures
collection has been examined personally by the author.
Data have been collected mostly during holidays, winter
A questionnaire was adopted to measure the variables
and summer periods when huge numbers of domestic as
or constructs enclosed in the proposed conceptual fra-
well as international visitors visiting at the above men-
mework, as shown in Figure 1. The conceptualization of
tioned major tourism destinations. The surveys were con-
brand or customer experience is based on the strategic
ducted during the period of December 1 2018 to May 31
marketing management literature (Brakus et al., 2009;
2019. Surveyors approached tourists in the major areas
Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Schmitt, 1999a, 1999b) where the
where the possibility of ﬁnding tourists was maximum like
concept has been considered as a vital element for
hotels, bus stands, railway stations, relaxation spots, and
theory construction and testing. The construct has its
destination sites. This technique was often used by many
origins in Brakus et al. (2009) original brand experience
studies (e.g. Bryce et al., 2015; Sharma & Nayak, 2019).
scale but has been adapted to this research based on
Surveyors approached travelers and requested a few
Tsaur et al.’s (2007) more tourism speciﬁc ﬁve-
screening questions (like, are you a tourist? and your
dimensional conceptualization of customer experience,
main purpose of visiting the speciﬁc destination?). It facil-
including sense, relate, feel, think, and act. The customer
itates to determine the respondents' suitability in line with
experience dimensions were captured with 12 items in
the objectives of this research. Those suitable visitors who
total. A sample item includes: “I would like to share what
joined eagerly in the survey have been requested to recall
I experienced in this destination”. Customer engagement
their latest tourism destination experience in selected
tourism destinations. On an average, the participants Table 1. Sample proﬁle.
take nearly 10 minutes to complete the questionnaires. Respondents’ Respondents
Based on the ratio of sample size to variables/items Variables Categories proportion (n = 520)
under examination, the present research estimated the Gender Male 56% 292
required sample size (Hair, Anderson, Babin, & Black, Female 44% 228 Age (years) 20 – 30 31% 162
2010). For that reason, 5:1 ratio is regarded as minimum; 31 – 40 20% 104
10:1 ratio is suggested as most acceptable; and 20:1 ratio 41 – 50 29% 150 Above 51 20% 104
is regarded as the more desired (Hair et al., 2010). As 29 Qualiﬁcation Matriculation 10% 52
variables/items investigated in the present study, Graduation 40% 208
a sample size of minimum 580 (i.e. 29 * 20 = 580) has Post-graduation 40% 208 Others 10% 52
been considered as adequate (Hair et al., 2010). For data Reasons for Leisure 40% 208
collection, 600 customers have been approached. Five travelling Adventure 30% 156
hundred and thirty visitors/customers ﬁlled their ques- Religious 20% 104
tionnaires and send back it to ﬁeld investigator. Out of Business 10% 52 Visitation First time visit 51% 266
530 ﬁlled questionnaires received from participants, 10 status
were deleted owing to the existence of outliers and Repeat visit 49% 254
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 23 Cognitive H1 Engagement Customer H4 Experience H2 H8 Affective Behavioural Engagement Intention H5 H3 H7 Customer Identification Behavioral H6 Engagement
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
was measured by employing Hollebeek et al.’s (2014)
analysis has been employed to assess the psychometric
ten-item multidimensional scale with a sample item:
properties of the variables/constructs (Table 2). Survey
“Using this tourism destination stimulates my interest to
data have been tested for the measurement adequacy
learn more about this destination”. Customer identiﬁcation
and underlying factor structure. Initially, standardized
was gauged by using Kumar and Kaushik (2018) four-
factor loadings (SFLs) for all items/indicators were eval-
item scale. A sample item includes: “If a story in the media
uated to verify if the items load on their own constructs.
criticized this destination, I would feel embarrassed”.
The results signify the substantial convergent validity,
Finally, behavioral Intention items were sourced from
where SFLs are above 0.70 (e.g. Hair et al., 2010). Further,
Coudounaris and Sthapit’ s (2017) three-item tourism-
Cronbach’s alpha value is in the acceptable range (0.-
based scale, with a sample item reading: “Visit this desti-
901–0.945) in accordance with the threshold; α greater
nation more in the next few years.” All the variables and
than 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010), verifying strong reliability.
measurement items are presented in Appendix A.
Constructs internal consistency is assessed due to values
of composite reliability (CR) that fall in the suggested
limit i.e. CR above 0.70 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Average Common method bias testing
variance extracted or AVE for each construct maintains
the convergent validity. The criterion value for AVE
Common method bias (CMB) may be problematic in
should be greater than 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)
cross-sectional studies (Podsakoﬀ, MacKenzie, Lee, &
(Table 2). Moreover, all the inter-construct correlations
Podsakoﬀ, 2003). Thus, this study employed Podsakoﬀ
are below 1, hence supporting the discriminant validity
et al.’s (2003) method to prove the presence of common
of the study (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminant valid-
method bias in survey data. Firstly, the conﬁdentiality
ity was further ascertained to compare the square root
and anonymity of participants were maintained.
value of AVE score of each factor/construct (Table 3) with
Secondly, CMB is unlikely if correlations are not very
inter-construct correlations (e.g. Hair et al., 2010).
high (below 0.9; Hair et al., 2010). In Table 3, correlation
Subsequently, this study generated a CFA model com-
matrix indicates that the lack of very high correlation
posed of six constructs with all the 29 indicators/items
values in survey data, thereby common method bias is
and the model attained a reasonable ﬁt: χ2 = 252.84, df = not an issue in this study.
119, χ2/d. f. = 2.12, NFI = .94, CFI = .95, GFI = 0.91, and
RMSEA = .065, in line with criterion: NFI, CFI, TLI, GFI
greater than 0.90, and RMSEA less than 0.08 (Bentler & Analysis and results Bonnett, 1980). Measurement model
Data analysis was conducted by employing a two-stage
Structural model and hypothesis testing
structural equation modelling technique that is conﬁr-
matory factor analysis or CFA followed by structural
Second, to perform the structural analysis, this study
equation modeling or SEM (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
adopted SEM using AMOS 20.0 software. Structural
Software AMOS 20.0 has been utilized to examine the
equation modeling approach facilitates the simulta- proposed relationships. First, conﬁrmatory factor
neous estimation of relationships among various

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing | Đại học Ngoại Ngữ - Tin Học Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh

Thông tin :

Tài liệu liên quan:

NGHIÊN CỨU CÁC YẾU TỐ ẢNH HƯỞNG ĐẾN SỰ HÀI LÒNG CỦA KHÁCH DU LỊCH NỘI ĐỊA TẠI TỈNH HÀ GIANG | Đại học Ngoại Ngữ - Tin Học Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh

CHỌN MẪU TRONG NGHIÊN CỨU | Đại học Ngoại Ngữ - Tin Học Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh

phương pháp nghiên cứu khoa học - tiểu luận cuối kì | Đại học Ngoại Ngữ - Tin Học Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh

VĂN HÓA DOANH NGHIỆP VÀ ĐẠO ĐỨC KINH DOANH | Đại học Ngoại Ngữ - Tin Học Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh