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

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 oering experiential services to promote the development of
their competitive advantage. This research investigates the eects of customers tourism engage-
ment with experiential marketing activities and develops and tests a framework in this area.
Findings suggest that customer engagements dimensions exert diering eects on customer
experience and identication, which subsequently aect behavioral intention toward destinations.
Findings also suggest the indirect eects of customer engagement dimensions on behavioural
intentions via experience and identication. Further, ndings propose the signicant di erence
between rst-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;
identication; behavioral
intention; rst-time visitors;
repeat-visitors; destination;
tourism
Introduction
Market globalization is inuencing tourism industry
globally. Economic downturn, intensied competition,
and growth of new technologies oer 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 Gilmores (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 dont like to purchase
the product/s, but rather the stories behind and the
experience enabled by o erings.
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 Disneylands 1955 opening (Hannam, 2004).
Therefore, what does a customer gets from tourism or
travel oerings? First and foremost, the customers per-
ceived benets lie in experience. While economic oer-
ings like goods, commodities, or services are external to
customer, experiences are intrinsically personal and exist
only in the customers 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 customers minds and inuence their consequent beha-
viors. Consequently, managing the customers experien-
tial environment is a key concern for the survival and
competitive advantage of tourism rms.
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 oer 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
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2011). One exception to this observation is indeed oered
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 aected 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
havent 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
(20142016) and (20162018) positioned CE and CX as the
most signicant 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 signies a particular service
subsector, this research identies 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 specic conceptual associations remain
unknown. Addressing this research gap, this study investi-
gates CEs nomological network in tourism destination
marketing context. In particular, this research explores the
role of CE dimensions in driving customer experience and
customer identication, 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, & OGorman, 2014), satisfac-
tion and loyalty (Rather, 2018a; So et al., 2014). Although
given its relative signicance, empirical research to under-
stand engagement while actually experiencing tourism
destinations/oerings 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 identication, behavioral intention) that are
deemed to be of interest to tourism destinations/rms.
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 dierences relating to rst-time custo-
mers and repeat visitors (e.g. Chua, Lee, & Han, 2017; Li,
Cheng, Kim, & Petrick, 2008; Liu et al., 2012). The dierences
between rst-time and repeat tourists are getting more
interest from the marketing and tourism scholars perspec-
tive. Information regarding visitors status like rst-time
and/or repeat tourists could be helpful in identifying
a tourism destinations 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 identication customer/
identication are critical in purchase likelihood, brand
choice, and nally 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 dierent 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 identication are main drivers for future
customer behavior, particularly in tourism, in which
16 R. A. RATHER
intangible services/oerings 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 satises these
calls by investigating two major outcomes of customer
engagement dimensions namely customer experience
and identication and oers 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 identi-
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
engagements role in inuencing 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 aect beha-
vioural intention. Third, the present research explores the
indirect eects of CE including aective, cognitive, and
behavioral dimensions on behavioural intention through
customer experience and identication in tourism destina-
tions. Fourth, this study also intends to explore the dier-
ence between rst-time and repeat customers in terms of
customers engagement, experience, identication, and
loyalty constructs. Finally, future research directions are
discussed to address research gaps in the literature.
Practically, the study ndings reveal that CE makes
a substantial contribution to customer experience, there-
fore revealing a superior level of managerial signicance.
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 customers identication, which
in turn eects 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
eective in driving tourist behavior (Brun, Rajaobelina,
Ricard, & Berthiaume, 2017; Rather, 2018c; Sharma &
Nayak, 2019). Experiences are private events, which hap-
pen in reply to customers 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 rst 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 specic type of economic oering that generates compe-
titive benet which is dicult 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 consumers 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 oerings 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 dierent kinds of CX for their
consumers (Song et al., 2015; Tsaur et al., 2007). In experi-
ential marketing, the experiential modules include aective
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 rms, 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 consumers emotions and
inner feelings by generating aective 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 visitors 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 consumers 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 customers pri-
vate, personal feelings, thereby linking the customer to
something beyond its private state. RELATE campaigns
enrich customers 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 ones 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
elds 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, & Krat, 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 dierent 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 inuential, 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 CEs denition. For
example, Brodie et al. (2011, p. 258) dened 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) dened CE as
behaviors that go beyond transactions and may be speci-
cally de ned as a customers behavioral manifestations
that have a brand or rm focus, beyond purchase, resulting
from motivational drivers. Hollebeek et al. (2014, p. 154)
dene it as a consumers positively valenced brand-related
18 R. A. RATHER
cognitive, emotional and behavioral activity during or
related to focal consumer/brand interactions. Regardless
of these dierences, CE has been widely viewed to include
aective, 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 CEs psychological aspects or behavioral activ-
ities would likely provide insucient insight to properly
investigate the concept (Ahn & Back, 2018; Hollebeek
et al., 2014). Although, neither the behavioral activities nor
psychological aspects alone reect 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,
aective, and behavioral) CE in this study (Ahn & Back,
2018 2014; Hollebeek et al., ). Relatedly, cognitive CE refers
to a consumers level of brand-related thought processing
and elaboration in a particular consumer/brand interac-
tion. Secondly, aective CE is dened as a consumers
degree of positive brand-related aect in a particular con-
sumer/brand interaction. Thirdly, behavioral CE refers to a
consumers level of energy, eort 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 specic signicance towards service context which
is typied by high customerbrand 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-
cically 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, dening 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
aective components (Verhoef et al., 2009). Homburg,
Schwemmle, and Kuehnl (2015, p. 8) dene CX as the
evolvement of a persons sensorial, aective, 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 rm, like services, products, or employees.
Experience is specic 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 . . . diers from motivational
concepts, such as involvement, thus further di erenti-
ates brand/customer experience from customer engage-
ments motivational aspect (Hollebeek & Macky, 2019). In
spite of such dierences, both CX and CE t 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
engagements 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
inuence 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 engagements inuence 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 CEs dimen-
sions (i.e. cognitive, aective and behavioral) as impor-
tant predictors of customer experience with tourism
destinations/sites. Thus:
H1: Cognitive CE with the tourism destination positively
inuences customer experience.
H2: Aective CE with the tourism destination positively
inuences customer experience.
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 19
H3: Behavioral CE with the tourism destination positively
inuences customer experience.
Customer identication as a consequence of CE
Social identity theory or SIT is a key theoretical underpin-
ning for marketing based customer identication (Hultman
et al., 2015; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Rather, Tehseen, &
Parrey, 2018). Based on SIT, customerbrand identication
or customer identication denotes a consumers psycholo-
gical state of feeling, perceiving and valuing their belong-
ingness with the oering/brand (Rather & Hollebeek, 2019).
SIT proposes that individuals can spend substantial eorts
to build their own social identity, besides their personal
identity (e.g. Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Rather, Tehseen,
Itoo, & Parrey, 2019). These claims also t with social
exchange theory or SET that focus on individuals likely
rewards from their social eorts (Hollebeek, 2011), thus
revealing a proper linkage between these perspectives as
employed in the present research. Researchers
applied identication to consumerbrand 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 oerings 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 customerbrand engagement (CBE) in self-
concept construct, wherein CE and customers identica-
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 identication. 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,
aective, and emotional CE will persuade customers iden-
tication. For instance, Hollebeek et al. (2014) suggested
that consumers cognitive and aective CE in social media
serve to predict customers self-brand connection and
identication towards the oering/brand. Relatedly,
Harrigan et al. (2018) propose that customers engage
actively towards social media tourism brands, and their
self-brand connection and/or identication is reinforced.
Clearly, this connects their brand to the customers identity.
As social exchange theory (SIT) implies that customers
would invest resources only when the exchange creates
value for them (e.g. status, aliation, identication;
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), dening 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 customers cognitive, aective and behavioral engage-
ment, higher is the customers identication with the des-
tination brand. Therefore, it is hypothesized:
H4: Cognitive CE with the tourism destination positively
aects customer identi cation.
H5: Aective CE with the tourism destination positively
a cation.ects customer identi
H6: Behavioral CE with the tourism destination positively
a cation.ects customer identi
Behavioural intention as a consequence of
customer identi cation
Oliver (1997, p. 28) dened 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 aect 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 customers identication can prove vital for
developing long-term relationships (Bhattacharya & Sen,
2003; Rather, 2017, 2018b; Rather & Hollebeek, 2019),
such as by aecting brand re-buying intentions. Further,
researchers recommend that identication increases cus-
tomers resistance towards switching brands (Lam,
Ahearne, Hu, & Schillewaert, 2010). In nation-brand set-
tings, people who articulated higher identication
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 identication 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 identication with that specic tourism destination.
Hence, it is assumed that:
H7: Customer identication with the tourism destination
positively aects 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 eects 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 rm 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 inuence of memorable tourism experi-
ences on tourists behaviour via destination image and
tourists 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
inuencing 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 aects behavioural intention.
Dierences between rst-time and repeat
visitors
Dierence between rst-time visitors and repeat visitors in
terms of customer-based outcomes including experience,
identication, loyalty and satisfaction is questionable (Chua
et al., 2017 2019; Shavanddasht & Allan, ). In tourist destina-
tion context, few research works indicated that rst-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 rst-time
tourists (Li et al., 2008). Research established that rst-time
customers are most expected in search of dierent 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, rst-time tourists start to gather informa-
tion earlier than repeat tourists (Li et al., 2008). In making
travel decisions, rst-time tourists depend highly on recom-
mendations from friends, family, and travel professionals
(e.g. Li et al., 2008 2004). Lehto, OLeary, and Morrison ( )
examined the eects of prior experience on vacation beha-
vior. They assert that repeat-trip varies from regular service/
product re-purchases as prior-trip experiences cant be
duplicated. Further, a more dierentiated and complex
brand image and identication 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 rst-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 signicant dierence between rst-time
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 oer leisure, recreation, cultural, adventure, religious
and other attractions, thus providing broad insight into
consumer behaviors and motivations. Thirdly, in India, the
tourism industry oers 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 signicance 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 modied as required to
ensure the clarity of items. Results showed no concerns
about the readability of questionnaire. In the nal 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 data
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 nding 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 specic 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 lled their ques-
tionnaires and send back it to eld investigator. Out of
530 lled questionnaires received from participants, 10
were deleted owing to the existence of outliers and
missing values. At last, 520 questionnaires were retained
for nal 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 2030 years, 20% of respondents were 3149 years,
29% of respondents were 4150 years, while 20% were
above 51 years. With respect to respondents' educational
qualication, 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 rst-time and 49% were repeat visitors.
The sample prole 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-c
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.
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
Qualication 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 cation
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 (Podsako, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsako, 2003). Thus, this study employed Podsako
et al.s (2003) method to prove the presence of common
method bias in survey data. Firstly, the con dentiality
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-
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, conrmatory 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,
Cronbachs alpha value is in the acceptable range (0.-
9010.945) 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 t: χ
2
= 252.84, df =
119, χ
2
/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
H1
H4
H2 H8
H5
H3 H7
H6
Cognitive
Engagement
Customer
Experience
Behavioural
Intention
Behavioral
Engagement
Customer
Identification
Affective
Engagement
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING 23
| 1/19

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