HtE

MM

a

ARR2A

KIABBPB

1

pgciacc

hm(ms

S

M

h0

International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

jou rn al hom ep age: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / i jhosman

ow can integrated marketing communications and advancedechnology influence the creation of customer-based brand equity?vidence from the hospitality industry�

aja Seric ∗, Irene Gil-Saura1, María Eugenia Ruiz-Molina2

arketing and Market Research Department, University of Valencia, Avenida de los Naranjos s/n, Valencia, Spain

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 5 December 2012eceived in revised form4 December 2013ccepted 25 February 2014

eywords:

a b s t r a c t

As the most recent approach of communication management, the integrated marketing communication(IMC) programmes, enhanced by the advancements in information and communication technology (ICT),are considered an important contribution to the brand equity building. However, hardly any researchhas been done on the role of this new communication practice in the hospitality industry. Moreover,previous studies have mainly focused on managers’ opinions, overlooking customers’ perceptions ofboth marketing communications and advanced technology. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to

ntegrated marketing communicationsdvanced technologyrand equityrand imageerceived qualityrand loyalty

examine, from the customer perspective, the impact of integrated marketing communications on hotelbrand equity, considered as a multidimensional construct composed of brand image, perceived quality,and brand loyalty. In addition, the moderating role of advanced technology on these relationships istested. While the findings show positive relationships between the studied constructs, the moderatingrole of technology is not corroborated.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Changes produced in the market have led to changes in theractice of marketing and communication management, as one sin-le marketing communication tool could not achieve marketingommunication purposes by itself (Kitchen et al., 2004). Accord-ngly, the integrated marketing communications (IMC) approachppeared as a more efficient and sophisticated communication dis-ipline that quickly responds to the increasingly changing marketonditions (Kim et al., 2004).

Although the idea of integration and coordination has a longistory, what is new about IMC is that technological develop-ents have made possible to put this idea into operational practice

Kliatchko, 2005). In fact, advancements in information and com-unication technology (ICT) are considered as one of the most

ignificant background factors of IMC (Kitchen et al., 2004; Gurau,

� The authors are grateful for the support of the project ECO2010/17475 of thepanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 963 82 89 61; fax: +34 963 82 83 33.

E-mail addresses: Maja.Seric@uv.es (M. Seric), Irene.Gil@uv.es (I. Gil-Saura),.Eugenia.Ruiz@uv.es (M.E. Ruiz-Molina).1 Tel.: +34 963 82 83 12; fax: +34 963 82 83 33.2 Tel.: +34 961 62 51 77; fax: +34 963 82 83 33.

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.02.008278-4319/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

2008; Kliatchko, 2009). The unique ability of the advanced technol-ogy to provide two-way, customised, one-to-one, database-drivencommunication programmes enabled firms to move towards theIMC paradigm (Kim et al., 2004). Thus, owing to advanced tech-nology solutions, IMC programmes are able to capture precise dataon customers. This means that database management is of crucialimportance for the IMC approach, as it centres on a well-definedtarget (Kliatchko, 2005).

Whereas the acceptance of IMC is growing rapidly (Edmiston-Strasser, 2009; Kitchen and Schultz, 2009), the literature suggeststhat further contributions are needed to consolidate the con-cept (McGrath, 2005). In particular, the research on IMC is prettyneglected within the hospitality industry (Seric and Gil-Saura,2011, 2012a, 2012b), where the need for integration has proven tobe as necessary as in other industries (Hudson, 2008). In addition, itseems that consumers’ perceptions of marketing communicationsare often forgotten in IMC research (Gould, 2004). This might besurprising as IMC advocates for an “outside-in” approach, mean-ing that it is first looking at the integration from the customeror prospect view, rather than a traditional inside-out perspective(Schultz, 1993; Anantachart, 2004; Kliatchko, 2005, 2009). In this

sense, Shultz (1994) pointed out that consumers’ perceptions ofthe integration of marketing communications need to be consid-ered in order to measure efficiently the return on investment of IMCcampaign. Actually, the great change in the communication process

Hospit

ri2

eblbcKDmmasit12D2

dbKAshtG

toctcwt

2

2h

mcistktci(

2tep2tsid

M. Seric et al. / International Journal of

efers to the fact that the consumers are currently taking control oft, as they decide whether and when to receive the message (Gurau,008; Kliatchko, 2009; Keller, 2009; Kitchen and Schultz, 2009).

In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in theffectiveness of marketing communication considered as a keyenefit of building a strong brand (Keller, 2009). Accordingly, the

iterature has emphasised the importance of research of customer-ased brand equity concept, as it represents the result of marketingommunication activities (Duncan and Moriarty, 1997; Reid, 2002;eller, 2009) and a key driver of business’s success (Prasad andev, 2000). However, as Keller (2009) stated, these marketing com-unications activities have to be integrated to deliver a consistentessage and accomplish the strategic positioning. Thus, academics

nd practitioners in the field of marketing and branding haveupported the notion that IMC plays an important role in build-ng and maintaining stakeholder relationships, and in leveraginghese relationships to create customer-based brand equity (Keller,993; Duncan and Moriarty, 1997; Reid, 2002, 2005; Anantachart,004; Madhavaram et al., 2005; Baidya and Maity, 2010; Kerr andrennan, 2010; Delgado-Ballester et al., 2012; Seric and Gil-Saura,012b).

If we focus on the hospitality industry, three brand equityimensions were found significant in this specific context: (1)rand image, (2) perceived quality, and (3) brand loyalty (e.g.,im et al., 2003; Kim and Kim, 2005; Kayaman and Arasli, 2007).lthough there has been considerable research on these dimen-ions and their inter-relationship within the hotel sector, scholarsave paid hardly any attention to the role that IMC might play inhe creation of customer-based hotel brand equity (e.g., Seric andil-Saura, 2012b).

Thereby, in this study, we intend to fill the existing gap inhe literature by empirically testing the impact of perceived IMCn creation of brand equity, specifically on the dimensions ofustomer-based brand equity that were found significant withinhe hotel context. In addition, the relationships between the threeustomer-based hotel brand equity dimensions are considered, asell as the moderating role of advanced technology on the rela-

ionships between IMC and brand equity.

. Conceptual framework

.1. Integrated marketing communications in the tourism andospitality industry

Due to the high fragmentation of tourism markets and theedia, consumers find themselves with fragmented images in a

onfusing marketing environment. This is why marketers operat-ng in this sector must coordinate all communication messages andources in order to deliver a consistent, unified message throughheir promotional activities (Hudson, 2008). The integrated mar-eting communications (IMC) approach is an appropriate responseo this need, as it adopts the holistic view of marketing communi-ations in order to deliver a consistent message and achieve majormpact through the integration of all elements of promotional mixKeller, 2009).

After reviewing 60 empirical studies on IMC published since000, we found only a few of them applied in the tourism sec-or in general (e.g., Skinner, 2005; Elliott and Boshoff, 2008; Wangt al., 2009; Dinnie et al., 2010) and in the hospitality industry inarticular (e.g., Kulluvaara and Tornberg, 2003; Seric and Gil-Saura,011, 2012a,b) (see Table 1). For example, Skinner (2005) analysed

he messages that the nation’s key stakeholders sent out on web-ites and in key documents while promoting Wales. The resultsndicated that the “one-voice” principle of IMC was not respected,ue to the inconsistent promotion of the country based on different

ality Management 39 (2014) 144–156 145

images and weak messages. Elliott and Boshoff (2008) interviewed316 managers in small tourism enterprises in South Africa in orderto analyse the impact of different business orientations on IMC.The findings revealed a positive impact of: (1) market orientation,(2) entrepreneurial orientation, and (3) pro-active competitor ori-entation on IMC implementation. In addition, Wang et al. (2009)studied the role of IMC on selection of a heritage destinationamong 197 visitors of Lukang. The authors identified three fac-tors of IMC: (1) public relations, (2) advertisement, and (3) directsale and promotion and showed that the influence of each fac-tor changed within different demographic groups. Finally, Dinnieet al. (2010) examined the extent to which the key organisationsengaged in nation branding activities (i.e., promotion organisa-tions, investment agencies, national tourism organisations, andembassies) follow the principle of coordination that characterisesthe IMC approach. Seven key dimensions of inter-organisationalcoordination emerged from their findings (i.e., sector, organisationdomicile, mode, strategy formulation, nature, frequency, and targetaudience).

The study of Kulluvaara and Tornberg (2003) was the first toexamine IMC in the hotel context, although limited to a case studyof Icehotel (i.e., a hotel built of ice and snow and a Swedish touristattraction) and a description of its successful IMC strategy. Nev-ertheless, the IMC research within the hospitality industry wasinitiated by Seric and Gil-Saura (2011, 2012a,b), in particular, intheir studies conducted in high-quality hotels of Croatia. They firstinvestigated the level of implementation of IMC and ICT from themanagers’ point of view. The findings showed a high degree of IMCand ICT implementation in first-class and luxury hotels in Dalmatia,the largest region on the coast of Croatia. However, whereas the ICTapplication increased with the hotel category, the IMC implementa-tion decreased (Seric and Gil-Saura, 2011). In addition, the authorscompared managers’ and guests’ perceptions of IMC, finding smallbut significant differences between the two compared groups. Theyconcluded that managers believed that the IMC implementationwas greater than the hotel guests actually perceived it (Seric andGil-Saura, 2012b). This gap is in line with previous research andmight be explained by the fact that receiving the message is alwaysa creative process that cannot be planned, executed, nor controlledby the sender. In other words, marketers should be aware that mes-sages sent do not necessarily equal messages received, as nowadayscustomers frequently redefine corporate messages and symbols,and modify or even pervert their meanings in ways not imagined bytheir creators (Christensen et al., 2009). Finally, in their most recentstudy, Seric and Gil-Saura (2012a) tested the relationships amongICT, IMC, and brand equity from the customer perspective. The find-ings revealed positive relationships between the studied variables.Still, the authors focused only on the mediating role of IMC betweenICT and brand equity and did not analyse the inter-relationshipamong brand equity dimensions. Moreover, no attempt was madeto examine the moderating role of technology on the IMC impact.

The main limitation of this sequence of studies provided by Sericand Gil-Saura (2011, 2012a,b) is a small sample size. This is why theauthors suggested reconsidering the perception of IMC and its rolein brand equity creation among a greater number of respondents,approaching, moreover, the countries with more developed hotelindustries.

2.2. Customer-based brand equity in the hospitality industry

Customer-based brand equity is considered as one of the topissues in the hospitality industry (Kim et al., 2008), showing cur-

rently considerable empirical evidence in this specific area (e.g.,Kimpakorn and Tocquer, 2010; So and King, 2010; Hyun and Kim,2011; Malik and Naeem, 2011; Nam et al., 2011; Tasci and Denizci-Guillet, 2011; Dioko and So, 2012; Hsu et al., 2012a,b; Seric and

146 M. Seric et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156

Table 1IMC in the tourism and hospitality industry.

Authors IMC dimensions Items Sample

Kulluvaara and Tornberg (2003) Communication strategy process 28 Icehotel in SwedenMarketing communication tools 16

Skinner (2005) N/A N/A Marketing messages representing Wales asa brand

Elliott and Boshoff(2008)

Consistency 1 316 managers of smalltourism enterprises inSouth Africa

Integration 1Synergy of marketing communication tools 1

Wang et al. (2009) Direct sale & promotion 9 197 visitors of Lukang –a popular heritagetownship in Taiwan

Public relations 6Advertisement 5

Dinnie et al. (2010) Sector 10 members oforganisationsrepresenting fiveAssociation ofSoutheast AsianNations

Organisation domicileModeStrategy formulation N/ANatureFrequencyTarget audience

Seric and Gil-Saura(2011, 2012b)a

Unified communications for consistent messageand image

5 Managers of 17 four-and five-star hotels inthe Dalmatia region inCroatia

Differentiated communications to multiplecustomer groups

5

Database-centred communications for tangibleresults

4

Relationship fostering communications withexisting customers

4

Seric and Gil-Saura (2012a,b)a Unified communications for consistent messageand image

5 101 guests who stayed in 13 high-qualityin the region of Dalmatia in Croatia

N 118 g

GeebK2e(et(fc–eiaHtct

dtma22ca(atprt

ote: N/A = not available.a The study of Seric and Gil-Saura (2012b) approached managers of 15 hotels and

il-Saura, 2012b). However, despite the fact that the hotel brandquity concept has gained considerable interest among practition-rs and academics, there is a gap in the literature as to what is meanty the term and how it should be measured (Prasad and Dev, 2000;im and Kim, 2005; Bailey and Ball, 2006; Kayaman and Arasli,007; So and King, 2010). In their proposal of a numerical brandquity index from a consumer-centric perspective, Prasad and Dev2000) suggested that brand equity in the hotel context is consid-red as “the favourable or unfavourable attitudes and perceptionshat are formed and influence a customer to book at a hotel brand”p. 24). In addition, Xu and Chan (2010) provided a conceptualramework for understanding customer-based hotel brand equity,ategorising the concept into its attitudinal (i.e., brand knowledge

divided into brand awareness, brand associations, and quality ofxperience) and behavioural aspects (i.e., brand loyalty). Accord-ng to this conceptualisation, three brand knowledge dimensionsre critical in determining brand equity and overall brand loyalty.owever, it is questionable whether the brand associations and

he quality of experience are indeed distinct and separable con-epts, which is why further research is necessary to corroboratehis proposal.

Among different proposals of customer-based brand equityimensions in the hospitality industry (see Table 2), we observehat the conceptualisation provided by Aaker (1991, 1996) is the

ost frequently applied one (e.g., Kim et al., 2003, 2008; Kimnd Kim, 2004, 2005; Kayaman and Arasli, 2007; Lee and Kim,009; Nel et al., 2009; Hyun and Kim, 2011; Malik and Naeem,011). Aaker (1991, 1996) identified the following five brand equityomponents: (1) brand loyalty, (2) perceived quality, (3) brandssociations (referred to as brand image), (4) brand awareness, and5) other proprietary brand assets (comprising patents, trademarks,nd channel relationships). Yoo and Donthu (2001) suggested that

he last dimension of this proposal is not relevant to consumererception, due to the fact that customer-based brand equity rep-esents the assessment of cognitive and behavioural brand equityhrough a consumer survey.

uests.

As we have previously pointed out, the role of awareness inbrand equity creation in the hotel context is questionable becauseseveral recent studies revealed that it is not a significant dimen-sion of brand equity (e.g., Kim et al., 2003; Kim and Kim, 2004,2005; Bailey and Ball, 2006; Kayaman and Arasli, 2007; So and King,2010). Thus, the studies carried out in the hospitality industry ofKorea, specifically in luxury hotels (Kim et al., 2003; Kim and Kim,2005) and chain restaurants (Kim and Kim, 2004, 2005) suggestedthat brand awareness was a significant construct affecting compa-nies’ performance, but it was not loaded highly in the context ofhotel brand equity. Likewise, according to the statistical results ofthe Kayaman and Arasli’s (2007) study, brand awareness was nota significant dimension of hotel brand equity for five-star hotels ofNorth Cyprus. Furthermore, the effect of brand awareness on brandequity was also found to be not significant in the study of So andKing (2010), conducted among 288 tourists in Australia who havepreviously stayed in a hotel. Hence, although the brand awarenessis a critical factor for the brand equity, it is not significant in thehotel context. As Bailey and Ball (2006) pointed out in their studyon meanings of hotel brand equity, this might be explained by thefact that there are many well-known hotel brands that are incon-sistent in their offer, and therefore, suffer from poor perceptionsof their quality. Accordingly, a brand name only will not guaranteethe success within the hospitality sector (Olsen et al., 1998). So andKing (2010) explained this by the fact that experience-based per-ceptions, rather than brand awareness, affect customer behaviour.This is why, in the present study, we consider brand equity as a con-struct composed of three dimensions, i.e., brand image, perceivedquality, and brand loyalty.

2.3. The impact of IMC on customer-based brand equity

The IMC supporters consider the concept as a revolutionmeant to enhance marketing efforts and create brand equity(McGrath, 2005). The branding literature suggests that the integra-tion of marketing communication programmes can form consumer

M. Seric et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156 147

Table 2Customer-based brand equity dimensions in the hospitality industry.

Authors Brand equity dimensions Items Sample

Cobb-Walgren et al. (1995) Awareness 90 MBA students for the hotelsample and 92 users for thehousehold cleanser sample

Brand awarenessAdvertising awareness N/A

Brand associationsPerceived quality

Prasad and Dev (2000) Brand performance 6 hypothetical hotelsSatisfactionReturn intentPrice–value perception N/ABrand preference

Brand awarenessTop of mind brand recall

Kim et al. (2003) Brand loyalty 6 513 Korean guests of 12 luxuryhotelsPerceived quality 11

Brand image 14Brand awareness 3

Kim and Kim (2004) Brand loyalty 6 394 guests of seven quick servicerestaurant brands in Seoul, Korea.Perceived quality 10

Brand image 14Brand awareness 3

Kim and Kim (2005) Brand loyalty 6 513 Korean guests of 12 luxuryhotels and 394 Korean guests of 13chain restaurants in Seoul, Korea

Perceived quality 11a10b

Brand image 14Brand awareness 3

Kayaman and Arasli (2007) Brand loyalty 4 345 guests of six five-star hotels inNorth CyprusPerceived quality 22

Brand image 8Brand awareness 3

Kim et al. (2008) Brand loyalty 2 264 travellers who stayed at one ofthe six selected midscale USAhotels

Perceived quality 4Brand awareness/association 3/2

Lee and Kim (2009) Perceived service quality 6 161 customers of airline companies, 177 customers ofbank/card services companies, and 150 customers ofdepartment stores – all guests of luxury hotels in SeoulKorea in five recent years

Brand image 15Brand awareness 2Brand loyalty 4Organizational image of the hotel 9Symbolic image of the hotel 6

Nel et al. (2009) Brand image 11 169 guests of three brands within three pricecategories of the City Lodge Hotels Ltd group,located in the Gauteng metropolitan area,South Africa

Perceived quality 11Brand loyalty 6Brand awareness 1

Denizci and Tasci (2010) Brand awareness 3 Tourism product (i.e., hotel,restaurant, resort or destination)Brand image 7

Perceived quality 9Value 3Brand loyalty 5

Kimpakorn and Tocquer (2010) Brand awareness 1 238 guests and 238 employees ofthe international luxury hotelchains in Bangkok, Thailand

Perceived quality 6Brand differentiation 2Core service brand associations 10Supporting service associations 3Brand trust 7Brand relationships 8

So and King (2010) Brand equity 4 288 tourists in a major Australiantourist destination who havepreviously stayed in a hotel

Brand awareness 5Brand meaning 9

Perceived value 3Brand personality 3Organisational associations 3

Company’s presented brand 8Advertising 4Promotions 4

External brand communications 10Word of mouth 5Publicity 5

Customer experience 16Core service 5Servicescape 4Employee service 7

Xu and Chan (2010) Brand awareness N/ABrand associations N/AQuality of experienceBrand loyalty

148 M. Seric et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156

Table 2 (Continued)

Authors Brand equity dimensions Items Sample

Hyun and Kim (2011) Brand awareness 4 188 guest of five chain restaurantbrand in South KoreaBrand image 10

Perceived quality 9Brand loyalty 6

Malik and Naeem (2011) Brand loyalty 6 200 guests of 8 four- and five-starhotels in PakistanPerceived quality 22

Brand Image 14Brand awareness 3

Nam et al. (2011) Service quality 7 378 British customers of 32 wellknown hotel and restaurant brandsPhysical quality 4

Staff behaviour 3Ideal self-congruence 3Brand identification 3Lifestyle-congruence 3

Tasci and Denizci-Guillet (2011) Brand familiarity 1 46 undergraduate students of aTourism and Hotel ManagementSchool in Hong Kong, China

Brand image 1Product and service quality 2Consumer value 1Brand value 1Loyalty 4

Dioko and So (2012) Social image 4 494 visitors of Macao, China whostayed in Macao’s hotelsPerformance 4

Trustworthiness of communication 3Attachment 3Value 3

Hsu et al. (2012a) Perceived quality 3 1346 guests of 29 four- andfive-star hotels located in 12 majorcities in China

Brand awareness 3Brand image 4Management trust 3Brand reliability 3Brand loyalty 3

Hsu et al. (2012b) Brand awareness 2 Managers and 226 clients of Trestaurant in Taiwan, ChinaBrand associations 3

Perceived quality 3

Seric and Gil-Saura (2012b) Brand image 7 101 guests who stayed in sevenluxury (68) and six first class (33)hotels in Dalmatia, Croatia

Perceived quality 3Brand loyalty 5

Note: N/A = not available.a Items used for hotels’ questionnaire.

pf2ltWmtabwcibStdcmtpirchte

b Items used for restaurants’ questionnaire.

erceptions of the product or service and can help to create dif-erent attributes of brand image (Keller, 1993, 2009; Anantachart,004). In particular, IMC can influence and control the meanings

inked with the brand, and create and reflect the brand image,hus influencing the way consumers perceive the product (Cobb-

algren et al., 1995). As brand image is shaped in the consumers’emory through brand associations, the consumer links the brand

o both favourable and unfavourable concepts (Keller, 2003). Inddition, IMC can create brand meaning in the consumers’ mindsy strategically linking tangible and intangible brand associationsith certain properties (Keller, 2009). The strength of brand asso-

iations from communication effects will actually depend on thentegration of brand identities (i.e., brand name, logo, and sym-ol) within the supporting marketing programmes (Keller, 1993).pecifically, Kandampully and Suhartanto (2000, 2003) suggestedhat, together with other marketing variables, communication canirectly affect the hotel’s image. Moreover, consistent message mayreate a stronger image suggestion in consumers’ memory than aessage that delivers conflicting or not highly consistent informa-

ion. Despite the medium that message is delivered through (i.e.,rint, television, Internet, or radio), if the message is consistent,

t will enhance the possibility that the brand’s intended image isetained by consumers (McGrath, 2005). Therefore, we can con-

lude that the customer will perceive a strong brand image whene perceives a consistent message through different communica-ion tools (Dewhirst and Davis, 2005; Keller, 2003; Madhavaramt al., 2005).

In addition, Israeli et al. (2000) reported that repetition in mar-keting communications could be a signal or indicator of qualityand, moreover, significant in creating and maintaining customerloyalty. Similarly, Keller (2009) suggested that IMC can stimulateintense and active consumer-brand loyalty relationships by facili-tating a strong connection between customers and the brand. AsMcGrath (2005) noted, if consumers are exposed to consistentbrand messages, these messages can help maintain brand loyalty.On the other hand, if consumers receive inconsistent messages,they can have negative impact on the initial learning about thebrand (Ehrenberg et al., 2002). When focusing on this relation-ship in the hotel context, Imrie and Fyall (2000) suggested thathotel’s promotional mix strategies can ensure customer retentionand loyalty. Similarly, Hennessey et al. (2010) pointed out that thepurpose of many tourism marketing communication campaigns isto build-on or change perceptions of customers in order to influ-ence their behavioural intentions. Therefore, from an individualcustomer perspective, one of the most important goals of IMC is toeffectively generate and maintain brand equity through encourage-ment and reinforcement of brand relationships with the customersand prospects (Anantachart, 2004).

2.4. The role of advanced technology

The rise of advanced ICT has dramatically changed advertisingand marketing communication planning in general, and IMC plan-ning in particular (Peltier et al., 2003). The literature has evidenced

M. Seric et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156 149

Table 3Advanced technology in the hospitality industry.

Authors ICT dimensions Items Sample

Siguaw et al. (2000) Internet reservations 1 5.287 US hotelsManagement e-mail systems 1In-room modems 1Voice mail 1Interactive television guide 1Teleconferencing 1Automatic teller machines 1In-room Internet access 1Cell phone rentals 1In-room fax machine 1

Gilbert andPowell-Perry (2001)

Language localisation 1 140 Yahoo hotelwebsitesSpecial promotions 1

Virtual tour 1What’s new 1Property information 1On-line directory 1Corporate information 1Electronic brochure 1

Lee et al. (2003) Guest-room technologies 10 30 managers of three-,four-, and five-starhotels in Australia

Service-operation technologies 17Impact of technology on sales and marketing 26

Sigala (2003) Room division ICT 10 Managers of 93three-star hotels in UKFood and beverage division ICT 4

In room ICT 6General ICT 8Property management systems 6Web site 6E-mail 7Intranet 7Extranet 7Customer data warehouse 6

Ham et al. (2005) Front-office applications 5 648 employees of 13five- and 8 four-starhotels in Seoul, SouthKorea

Back-office applications 6Restaurant and banquet management systems 4Guest-related interface applications 5

Law and Jogaratnam(2005)

Operating systems used in hotels 9 21 managers of hotelsin Hong KongApplication software/systems used in hotels 10

Hardware platforms 12IT equipment and services provided for guests 9Hotels have a homepage on the Internet 6Hotels have a connection to the central reservation system (CRS) 1

Sahadev and Islam(2005)

E-mail-based booking 1 Executives of 95 hotelsin ThailandOnline real-time booking 1

Global distribution system 1Internet centre in hotel 1Internet in all rooms 1Wireless internet in hotel 1Local area network for back office 1Property management software 1E-checkouts from rooms 1

Beldona and Cobanoglu (2007) Guest room technologies 24 265 US consumers who have previously stayed in a hotelRuiz-Molina et al.(2011)

In-house ICT Managers of 200three-, four-, andfive-star hotels in Spain

Hardware 17Connectivity 5Software 7Guest service equipment 3In room equipment 9

ICT for external useCRM 4Communications with customers 5Advertising 5

saccBJ((

Online order reception

Verma et al. (2012) Sites consulted at three purchase stages

Mobile innovations

everal denominations which reflect the synergy between the ICTnd IMC, such as: (1) interactive integrated marketing communi-ation (Peltier et al., 2003), (2) integrated Web-based marketingommunication (Barker and Angelopulo, 2004; Angelopulo and

arker, 2005), (3) online marketing communications (Jensen and

epsen, 2008), (4) integrated online marketing communicationGurau, 2008), and (5) interactive marketing communicationsKeller, 2009). The basic idea of these approaches is the interactive

127 2830 guests in USA

hotels3

nature of new media and the creation of personalised messagesconsistent with the communication campaign theme (Peltier et al.,2003).

Furthermore, the hospitality literature supports the essen-

tial role of ICT on company productivity (Siguaw et al., 2000;Sigala, 2003) and improvement of business operations (Law andJogaratnam, 2005). The implementation of new technologies inhotel companies results in notable advantages in management

1 Hospit

kcHrwose

hnwmoeI

stseTwmfafp

3

btMBtepac

50 M. Seric et al. / International Journal of

nowledge (Li et al., 2012), competition, increasing profitability,ost reduction, efficiency, and information-sharing (Lee et al., 2003;am et al., 2005). In addition, Gilbert and Powell-Perry (2001)

eported that the Web is an effective marketing relationship tool,hile Lee et al. (2003) found that, according to hotel managers’

pinions and beliefs, technology can also enhance the quality ofervice, contribute to lifting the overall image of the hotel, andncourage customer loyalty.

One criticism of much of the literature on ICT is that scholarsave paid little attention to the guest perception of advanced tech-ology (e.g., Beldona and Cobanoglu, 2007; Verma et al., 2012)hereas a great number of theoretical and empirical studies haveostly focused on the managers’ perceptions of different technol-

gy solutions within the hotel context (e.g. Siguaw et al., 2000; Leet al., 2003; Sigala, 2003; Law and Jogaratnam, 2005; Sahadev andslam, 2005; Ruiz-Molina et al., 2011) (see Table 3).

This lack of ICT studies based on guest perceptions might beurprising, as the hospitality industry managed to adjust itself tohe nowadays digital environment (Lee et al., 2003), where con-umers are adopting a more proactive attitude as they explicitlyxpress their opinions and perceptions (Gurau, 2008; Sigala, 2012).herefore, as Mulhern (2009) suggested, we believe that the correctay to understand this new digital landscape where information,arketing communications, and advanced technology converge, is

rom the customer perspective. This is why we decided to adopt customer-centric approach and to examine our research modelrom the hotel guests’ point of view. The hypotheses and the pro-osed model are presented in the following section.

. Hypotheses and proposed model

From the literature review we conclude that IMC can affectrand equity and that further empirical evidence is necessaryo corroborate this impact (e.g., Reid, 2005; Anantachart, 2004;

adhavaram et al., 2005; Kerr and Drennan, 2010; Delgado-allester et al., 2012; Seric and Gil-Saura, 2012b). We also observehat a number of studies found that three dimensions of brandquity are significant in the hotel context, i.e., brand image,erceived quality, and brand loyalty (e.g., Kim et al., 2003; Kim

nd Kim, 2005; Kayaman and Arasli, 2007). On the basis of theseonsiderations, we posit the following hypotheses:

H1: IMC perception has a positive impact on brand image.

H7c(+)

H7b(+)

H4(+)

H1(+)

H2(+)

H3(+)

H5(+)

IMC PERC EPTION

BRANDIMAGE

PERCEIVQUA LIT

BRANDLOYALT

H7a(+)

Direct rela tion ship

- - - - - - - - - - - - Moderati ng effec t

Fig. 1. Researc

ality Management 39 (2014) 144–156

H2: IMC perception has a positive impact on perceived quality.H3: IMC perception has a positive impact on brand loyalty.

Furthermore, the inter-relationship exists between the threebrand equity components in the hotel sector. Thus, perceived qual-ity can influence image (e.g., Kandampully and Hu, 2007; Kayamanand Arasli, 2007; Malik and Naeem, 2011) and customer loyalty.The impact of perceived quality on customer loyalty is both direct(e.g., Kandampully and Hu, 2007; Kayaman and Arasli, 2007; Hyunand Kim, 2011; Malik and Naeem, 2011; Hsu et al., 2012a) andmediated by image (e.g., Kandampully and Hu, 2007). Moreover,numerous studies confirmed a positive influence of brand imageon brand loyalty within the hospitality industry (e.g., Kandampullyand Suhartanto, 2000, 2003; Kandampully and Hu, 2007; Hyun andKim, 2011; Hsu et al., 2012a). Therefore, we propose the followinghypotheses:

H4: Perceived quality has a positive impact on brand image.H5: Perceived quality has a positive impact on brand loyalty.H6: Brand image has a positive impact on brand loyalty.

Finally, the conceptual framework has evidenced that syner-gies exist between IMC and advanced ICT (e.g., Peltier et al., 2003;Barker and Angelopulo, 2004; Angelopulo and Barker, 2005; Gurau,2008; Jensen and Jepsen, 2008; Keller, 2009). In addition, as notedby Lee et al. (2003), new technologies can improve brand imageand perceived quality and they might become a source of long-lasting relationships with clients. As a number of authors suggested,academics should also consider the role of advanced technologysolutions in order to understand consumers and their relationshipwith the brand and the company (e.g., Schultz, 1999; Reid, 2002;Kliatchko, 2009). Therefore, we believe that advanced ICT mightexert a moderating role on the relationships between IMC andbrand equity dimensions. Accordingly, we propose the last groupof hypotheses:

H7: The higher the level of advanced ICT perception, the stronger

the relationships between:H7a: IMC and brand image.H7b: IMC and perceived quality.H7c: IMC and brand loyalty. (see Fig. 1).

H6(+)

ED Y

Y

H6(+)

ADVAN CED ICT PERCEPTION

h model.

Hospit

4

4

ogwPsisaafiticeacntmsPccb

lKibipwctfan

oaaIhapiT

4

cimtosfi

we

M. Seric et al. / International Journal of

. Method

.1. Measures

We employed validated scales to measure guest perceptionf IMC, customer-based hotel brand equity dimensions, anduest perception of ICT advancements. Thus, IMC perceptionas assessed with the first dimension proposed by Lee and

ark (2007), named “unified communications for consistent mes-age and image”. These authors proposed a scale that representsmprovements over the previous IMC scales, as it was designedpecifically for the development of IMC measurement and not fornother purpose, its procedures are more rigorous in methodology,nd it is more comprehensive than other scales. We believe that therst dimension of their proposal, which we decided to employ inhis study, can be easily evaluated by the customer. This is becauset primarily focuses on influencing product’s recognition, image,onsumer’s preferences, and attitudes. This dimension is consid-red to be a fundamental aspect of IMC and has been identifiedt the early beginning of its evolution. The creation of a clear andonsistent image is emphasised by unifying messages and coordi-ating different marketing communication tools. In other words,his IMC aspect refers to the marketing communication activities

eant to create a single positioning of a brand by delivering a con-istent message through various communication channels (Lee andark, 2007). Thus, we measured the following five items of IMC: (1)onsistency through communication tools and channels, (2) visualonsistency of message, (3) linguistic consistency of message, (4)rand image consistency, and (5) long-term consistency.

On the other hand, brand image, perceived quality, and brandoyalty were measured using the scale of Kim et al. (2003) andim and Kim (2005), retaining: (1) seven items to evaluate brand

mage (i.e., being comfortable, high level of service, cleanliness,eing luxury, suitable place for high-class, feeling special by vis-

ting the hotel, differentiated image), (2) seven items to measureerceived quality (i.e., making customers feel special and valued,ell-mannered staff, providing services at promised time, effective

ustomer complaints handling, active communication with cus-omers, knowledge and confidence of the staff, anticipated serviceor special customer needs), and (3) four items to assess brand loy-lty (i.e., intention to return, satisfaction, intention to recommend,on-intention to change).

Finally, ICT perception was operationalised through four itemsf the scale of Gil-Saura and Ruiz-Molina (2009), which wasdapted to the hotel context. Thus, we assessed the following ICTspects: (1) perceptions regarding whether the hotel invests inCT, (2) perception of latest trend technology, (3) perception of theotel’s technology as more advanced, compared to other hotels,nd (4) consideration of guest opinion for ICT improvement. Werovided some advanced technology solutions to the respondents

n order to facilitate the answer (i.e., LCD, touch screens, interactiveV, ambient intelligence, etc.).

.2. Data collection

We conducted the empirical research in high-quality (i.e., firstlass, first class superior, luxury, and superior luxury) hotels locatedn Rome, Italy. In 20 hotels we obtained the permission from hotel

anagers to interview 20 guests in each hotel. A total of 400 poten-ial respondents were approached, while 335 valid responses werebtained, thus achieving a response rate of 83.75%. The respondentstayed in nine first class, three first class superior, three luxury, and

ve superior luxury hotels.

We collected the data through a structured questionnaire,hich consisted of closed questions measured by 5-point Lik-

rt type scales. The questionnaire was written in English, Italian,

ality Management 39 (2014) 144–156 151

and Spanish by experts fluent in Italian and English and native inSpanish. Some adjustments were made to adapt each version ofthe questionnaire to the respective culture, preserving coherencythroughout all three of them. In particular, to ensure item equiva-lence, each language version of the survey was translated forwardand back to insure uniformity among the versions (Malhotra et al.,1996). The translation of items from English to Italian and Span-ish and the final wording of the Italian and Spanish instrumentwere performed by faculty members of an Italian and Spanish uni-versity, respectively, who are proficient in each language. Finally,both versions were back-translated into English and examined byuniversity professors to confirm they have semantic equivalence(Mallinckrodt and Wang, 2004). The questionnaire was mainlyadministered through face-to-face interviews, while in some casesit was self-administered.

Once the data were collected, in order to confirm the validity ofthe proposed conceptual framework, a covariance structure anal-ysis or the estimation of a structural equations model was carriedout, following the two-step procedure recommended by Andersonand Gerbing (1988). In particular, we first performed a confirmatoryfactor analysis, and second, a structural, theoretical or causal modelthat allowed obtaining information about the posited hypotheses.Last, a multigroup or multisample structural equation model wasestimated in order to test the moderating role of perceived ICT onthe relationships among IMC and brand equity dimensions. In orderto perform these analyses, EQS version 6.1 and SPSS version 19 wereused as statistical software.

5. Results

5.1. Profile of respondents

As presented in Table 4, the respondents consisted of 53.7%female and 46.3% male. Two dominant age groups were 36–45(32.8%) and 46–55 (23.6%) years old. With regard to level ofeducation, 49.8% of the respondents had higher education (i.e.,university, college, or vocational school), 34.4% had secondary edu-cation, while 13.4% had post-graduate education (i.e., master orPhD). A great number of the respondents were employees (i.e.,service/government employees, policy/army, professional techni-cians, etc.) (41.5%), while 34.3% were businessmen, and 12.8% werestudents. With regard to reasons to travel, 83.9% of the respondentsstated they travelled for vacations, while 10.7% travelled for busi-ness. Reported frequency of hotel visit indicated that 83.3% of theguests visited the hotel once a year or less, 10.1% visited it two tofour times a year, whereas 6.6% visited it more than four times ayear. Most of the respondents (73.2%) were from: Italy (32.8%), US(21.2%), Spain (6.9%), France (6.6%), and Germany (5.7%).

5.2. Measurement model

As shown in Table 5, a confirmatory factor analysis was firstperformed for testing the psychometric properties of the study vari-ables. Furthermore, the reliability of scales was measured throughthe composite reliability and the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for allthe constructs. In particular, all the estimated indices were abovethe threshold of 0.7 for Cronbach’s alpha (Nunnally and Bernstein,1994) and 0.6 for CR (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), which showed goodinternal consistency of scales. In addition, we obtained acceptablevalues for the extracted variances, being all the standardised fac-tor loadings statistically significant for all the items. Moreover, as

all AVE values were greater than 0.5, we concluded that more than50% of variance of a construct was due to its indicators (Fornelland Larcker, 1981). All this allowed us to confirm the convergentvalidity of the model.

152 M. Seric et al. / International Journal of Hospit

Table 4Sample profile.

Guests Frequency %

GenderMale 155 46.3Female 180 53.7

Age18–25 34 10.126–35 64 19.136–45 110 32.846–55 79 23.656–65 36 10.7+ 65 12 3.6

Education levelPrimary education 8 2.4Secondary education 115 34.4Higher education (university, college,

or vocational school) 167 49.8Postgraduate education (master and PhD) 45 13.4

OccupationEmployee 139 41.5Businessman 115 34.3Student 43 12.8Housewife 10 3.0Retired 28 8.4

Travel reasonVacations 281 83.9Business 36 10.7Others 18 5.4

Frequency of hotel visit≤once a year 279 83.32–4 times a year 34 10.1>4 times a year 22 6.6

NationalityItalian 110 32.8United States 71 21.2Spanish 23 6.9French 22 6.6German 19 5.7Norway 16 4.8British 14 4.2Australia 11 3.3Holand 10 3.0Belgium 9 2.7Brazil 6 1.8Argentina 5 1.5Canada 5 1.5New Zealand 5 1.5Hong Kong 3 0.9India 2 0.6Israel 2 0.6

asecrT

5

mttfiC0tm

image, (2) perceived quality, and (3) brand loyalty. These results

Uruguay 2 0.6

In order to test the discriminant validity, we used Fornellnd Larcker’s (1981) criterion, since it is considered as the mosttringent one (Farrell, 2010). This method requires a construct’sxtracted variance to be bigger than the squared correlation of thisonstruct with another construct. As depicted in Table 6, all squareoots of AVE were higher than the correlations between constructs.herefore, the discriminant validity was also confirmed.

.3. Hypotheses testing

Once we verified the reliability and validity of the measure-ent scales, we estimated the structural equation model for the

otal sample. As presented in Table 7, the goodness of fit statis-ics showed that the model reasonably fits the data. The overallt of the model appeared to be acceptable with chi-square (224),FI, IFI, Bentler-Bonett NNFI and RMSEA of 677.14, 0.928, 0.929,

.919, and 0.078, respectively. Furthermore, the results of the mul-ivariate test of the structural model indicated that as a whole the

odel explains 67.5% of the variance in brand image. The explained

ality Management 39 (2014) 144–156

variances for perceived quality and brand loyalty were 21.5% and76.1%, respectively.

Regarding the relationships between IMC, brand image,perceived quality, and brand loyalty, we found support for the firstsix hypotheses (Table 7). In particular, positive and significant rela-tionships are corroborated between guests’ perceptions of IMC andbrand-equity dimensions, i.e., brand image (� IMC to Image = 0.387,p < 0.005), perceived quality (� IMC to Quality = 0.464, p < 0.005), andbrand loyalty (� IMC to Loyalty = 0.110, p < 0.01), thus supportingH1, H2, and H3. Positive and significant relationships arealso found between the three brand equity dimensions, morespecifically between: (1) perceived quality and brand image(�Quality to Image = 0.567, p < 0.005), (2) perceived quality and brandloyalty (�Quality to Loyalty = 0.629, p < 0.005), and (3) brand image andbrand loyalty (� Image to Loyalty = 0.221, p < 0.005), providing evidencein favour of H4, H5, and H6. These results are consistent with previ-ous literature reporting that IMC exerts a positive impact on brandequity creation and that the inter-relationship exists between sin-gle brand equity components.

In addition, significant indirect relationships between guests’perceptions of IMC and brand loyalty are observed. In particu-lar, the relationships between these constructs are mediated bybrand image (beta standardised coefficient: 0.436; p < 0.005) andperceived quality (beta standardised coefficient: 0.263; p < 0.005).The sequence IMC → Perceived quality → Brand image → Brandloyalty is also found to be significant (beta standardised coefficient:0.126; p < 0.005). These findings allow us to support the importanceof integrated marketing communications for brand equity as wellas for its final outcome, i.e. customer loyalty towards the brand inthe context of the hospitality industry.

Finally, a multisample analysis was performed to test the mod-erating role of ICT, after dividing the total sample in two groups,depending on customer perception of hotel ICT. In order to obtaina similar number of hotels in these two groups, the median valueof the ICT perception scale was considered as a reference, since themedian is defined as the value having half of the observations lessthan and half exceeding it. The average value of the four items mea-suring ICT perceptions provides a median value of 3.00. Thus, lowICT hotels are those that have an average assessment about the levelof advancement of ICT below the median value (i.e., 3.00), whereashigh ICT hotels are those showing an average ICT score above themedian (Table 8).

The results show that the relationships between IMC andbrand equity dimensions are stronger for hotels with higher ICTperception, compared to those with lower levels of technologyimplementation. In particular, while for low ICT hotels the stan-dardised parameters for the relationships between IMC and brandimage, perceived quality, and brand loyalty were 0.233, 0.203, and0.111 (p < 0.005), respectively, they amounted 0.517, 0.545, and0.208 (p < 0.005), respectively, for establishments with high levelsof ICT.

Nevertheless, differences between low and high ICT hotels werenot significant (p < 0.05) and, therefore, hypotheses H7a, H7b, andH7c are not supported.

6. Discussion and implications

The findings of this study confirm positive and significant rela-tionships between guest perceptions of IMC and customer-basedhotel brand equity, specifically between perceived unified com-munications for consistent message and image and: (1) brand

suggest that high level of hotel implementation of IMC, and its sub-sequent guest perception can increase brand equity and providethe hotel with competitive advantages. More specifically, from a

M. Seric et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 39 (2014) 144–156 153

Table 5Confirmatory factor analysis results, reliability coefficients and average variance extracted.

Construct Item St. loading factor(st. error)

t Cronbach’s � Compositereliability

Average varianceextracted

IMC Comm. tools and channels consistency 0.826 – 0.922 0.923 0.705Visual consistency 0.824 18.003Linguistic consistency 0.881 15.583Brand image consistency 0.869 17.060Long term consistency 0.796 15.806

Brand image Comfortable 0.760 – 0.934 0.937 0.681High level of service 0.850 19.796Cleanliness 0.713 14.032Luxury 0.891 17.162Suitable place for high-class 0.903 17.282Feeling special 0.863 16.092Differentiated image 0.778 14.595

Perceived quality Special and valued customer 0.875 – 0.955 0.957 0.759Well-mannered staff 0.880 23.018Services at promised time 0.884 23.012Effective complaint handling 0.861 17.377Active communication 0.835 21.161Staff knowledge and confidence 0.892 24.142Anticipated service for special needs 0.870 32.374

Brand loyalty Intention to return 0.879 – 0.940 0.943 0.806Satisfaction 0.869 20.067Intention to recommend 0.938 35.076Non-intention to change 0.903 31.522

Advanced ICTperception

Hotel investment in technology 0.804 – 0.871 0.876 0.642The most advanced technology 0.895 21.148More advanced technology than competitors 0.838 18.656Customers’ opinion on technology decisions 0.646 14.285

Note: comm. = communication; chi-square Satorra-Bentler: 913.08; degrees of freedom: 351; CFI: 0.923; IFI: 0.923; Bentler-Bonett NNFI: 0.913; RMSEA: 0.076.

Table 6Means, standard deviations, square root of AVE and correlations between constructs.

Construct Mean St. dev. Correlations

F1 F2 F3 F4

F1. IMC 3.906 0.774 0.839F2. Brand mage 3.372 1.268 0.650 0.825F3. Perceived quality 4.041 1.073 0.464 0.746 0.871F4. Brand loyalty 3.860 1.206 0.546 0.762 0.845 0.897

Note: diagonal values in bold are square root of AVE and others (off-diagonal) are correlations between variables.

Table 7Structural equations model results: total sample.

Relationship Stand. parameter Stand. error t Hypothesis

Direct effects IMC → Brand image 0.387 0.053 8.073b H1 supportedIMC → Perceived quality 0.464 0.083 8.869b H2 supportedIMC → Brand loyalty 0.110 0.069 2.576a H3 supportedPerceived quality → Brand image 0.567 0.039 10.209b H4 supportedPerceived quality → Brand loyalty 0.629 0.069 9.242b H5 supportedBrand image → Brand loyalty 0.221 0.106 3.074b H6 supported

Indirect effects IMC → Brand image → Brand loyalty 0.436 0.089 7.881b

IMC → Perceived quality → Brand loyalty 0.263 0.046 6.327b

IMC → Perceived quality → Brand image → Brand loyalty 0.126 0.041 3.134b

Chi-square Satorra-Bentler: 677.14; degrees of freedom: 224; CFI: 0.928; IFI: 0.929; Bentler-Bonett NNFI: 0.919; RMSEA: 0.078

Note: a* p < 0.01, b** p < 0.005.

Table 8Structural equations model results: multisample analysis.

Relationship Low ICT (N = 201) High ICT (N = 134) Chi2 diff. p-value Hypothesis

St. parameter p-value St. parameter p-value

IMC → Brand image 0.233 0.000 0.517 0.000 0.001 0.982 H7a not supportedIMC → Perceived quality 0.203 0.000 0.545 0.000 0.159 0.690 H7b not supportedIMC → Brand loyalty 0.111 0.003 0.208 0.001 0.292 0.589 H7c not supportedChi-square Satorra-Bentler: 985.24; degrees of freedom: 451; CFI: 0.878; IFI: 0.880; Bentler-Bonett NNFI: 0.863; RMSEA: 0.060

1 Hospit

cgfpucieiltttWsf

chirbwttmtfathhmql

ihiStswa

tatf

nsbldlmafiItfs2a

54 M. Seric et al. / International Journal of

ustomer-based brand equity perspective, our study shows thatuests’ IMC perception can form and maintain strong andavourable associations to the brand image and enhance hotelerceived quality. The implication for managers is that they need tonderstand how their marketing communication activities affectonsumer perceptions. In addition, they need to address the IMCmplementation to build and maintain hotel brand equity. As brandquity implies satisfied and loyal customers, the final purpose ofmplementing IMC in businesses should be to create satisfied andoyal customers. Therefore, we encourage hotel managers to focusheir attention on improving their efficiency and service qualityhrough the implementation of IMC programmes in general andhe transmission of unified and consistent messages in particular.

e believe that IMC will certainly lead a new world in the hotelector, which is why managers should conceive it as an importantactor of the creation of their business strategy.

Moreover, the results confirm that the three dimensions ofustomer-based brand equity examined here are interrelated forigh-quality hotel companies. Thus, perceived quality is found to

nfluence both brand image and brand loyalty. In particular, theesults of our study show that the impact of perceived quality onrand image is stronger than any other effect, which is in lineith results obtained by Sun and Ghiselli (2010) who concluded

hat perceived quality is the strongest predictor of brand equity inhe hotel industry. This is another important implication for hotel

anagers, who consistently need to provide high-quality serviceso their guests. This could be accomplished by making customerseel special and valued, by providing services at promised times,nd by anticipating services for customer special needs, ensuringhus personalised rather than standardised service. Moreover, theotel staff should actively communicate with guests, manage toandle their complaints effectively, and show confidence and good-anners, as these are found to be important factors of superior

uality performance that will retain customers and encourage theiroyalty.

This study also demonstrates that brand image bears a strongmpact on the development of brand loyalty. The implication is thatotel companies should do their best in creating a favourable brand

mage, ensuring comfort, cleanliness, and high-level of service.pecifically, hotels managers should be able to create a differen-iated image, making sure that their guests feel special during theirtay in the hotel. By doing so, hotels will obtain satisfied customers,ho will be willing to return and make positive recommendations

bout the hotel.Furthermore, indirect effects of IMC on brand loyalty are found

o be significant. The relationships between these constructs, medi-ted by brand image and perceived quality, provide evidence abouthe importance of integrated marketing communications for anyor-profit companies, since its ultimate goal is customer loyalty.

Finally, when studying the moderating role of advanced tech-ology, hotels perceived by guests as high technology hotels showtronger links between IMC and brand equity dimensions, i.e.rand image, perceived quality, and brand loyalty, compared to

ow technology hotels. Notwithstanding, we found no significantifferences in the hypothesised relationships among hotels with

ow ICT perception and those with high ICT perception. This findingight be explained by the higher importance of personal contact

nd communications with the hotel staff in brand equity creationor upscale hotel guests. Another possible explanation for this results the outside-in approach adopted in this work, meaning thatCT perception was evaluated from the customer rather than fromhe manager perspective. As we have observed in the conceptual

ramework, there is a tendency in the hospitality literature to con-ider ICT from the hotel point of view (e.g., Lee et al., 2003; Sigala,003; Ham et al., 2005; Li et al., 2012). Thus, according to hotel man-gers or employees opinions, ICT adoption implies a great number

ality Management 39 (2014) 144–156

of benefits affecting consumer perception and behaviour. How-ever, it may be that they centre on what a company is doing ratherthan what consumers are actually getting. Therefore, it seems pos-sible that our findings are also due to this discrepancy betweenhotel believes and guest perceptions. Thus, although hotel man-agers might think that a greater ICT adoption will result in a positivebrand image, perceived quality, and customer loyalty, when hotelguests’ opinions are considered it does not necessarily need to bethe same way. In this sense, hotel technology advancements donot seem to contribute positively to the hotel guest experience.Thereby, our study confirms the fact that doubts about efficiencyof technology solutions still seem to persist. This is in line withso called “IT paradox literature”, which fails to show a correlationbetween ICT investment and firm performance (Lee and Connolly,2010).

6.1. Conclusion, limitations, and future research possibilities

This paper makes several important contributions. First, the roleof IMC in brand equity building is studied in the hospitality indus-try. Second, three significant components of customer-based hotelbrand equity are identified (i.e., brand image, perceived quality, andbrand loyalty), and the inter-relationship among these dimensionsis examined. Third, a moderating role of advanced ICT on the rela-tionships between IMC and brand equity dimensions is analysed.Fourth, the model is tested from the guest perceptive, confirmingthus the importance of consumer opinions and perceptions as anintegral part of business and marketing strategies. Finally, a contri-bution is made to the hospitality industry, specifically to the Italianhotel context.

However, some limitations of this study should be consideredas opportunities for the future research. First, the results of thispaper concern only the Italian high-quality hotel segment, whichimposes caution for their generalisation. Therefore, we suggestfuture research to approach upscale hotels in other countries. Toincrease generalisation of the findings, mid priced or budget hotelcould also be included in the study. In addition, the role of IMCcould be considered in other service companies. Moreover, someother variables could be included in the model. We did not ana-lyse brand awareness, as previous research showed that it is not asignificant dimension of hotel brand equity. However, future stud-ies could consider this variable as one of brand equity dimensions.In addition, satisfaction could be examined separately, and not asan integral factor of brand loyalty, as customer satisfaction andbrand loyalty are two distinctive constructs. Finally, in this studywe used three different versions of the questionnaire (English, Ital-ian, and Spanish) to collect data. To detect any cultural biases thatmight affect the linguistic equivalence of different questionnaireformats, we suggest that future research considers pretesting thequestionnaire among different bilingual subjects.

References

Aaker, D.A., 1991. Managing Brand Equity. Free Press, New York.Aaker, D.A., 1996. Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California

Management Review 38 (3), 102–120.Anantachart, S., 2004. Integrated marketing communications and market planning:

their implications to brand equity building. Journal of Promotion Management11 (1), 101–125.

Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modelling in practice: areview and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3),411–423.

Angelopulo, G.C., Barker, R., 2005. Integrated Web-based marketing communication:an institutional tracking study. Communicatio 31 (1), 107–121.

Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1), 74–94.

Baidya, M., Maity, B., 2010. Effectiveness of integrated marketing communications:empirical analysis of two brands in India. Journal of Indian Business Research 2(1), 23–31.

Hospit

B

B

B

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

E

E

F

F

G

G

G

G

H

H

H

H

H

H

I

I

J

K

K

K

M. Seric et al. / International Journal of

ailey, R., Ball, S., 2006. An exploration of the meanings of hotel brand equity. TheService Industries Journal 26 (1), 15–38.

arker, R., Angelopulo, G.C., 2004. The integrated Web-based marketing communi-cation model: a South African case-study. International Journal of Technology,Policy and Management 4 (1), 53–62.

eldona, S., Cobanoglu, C., 2007. Importance-performance analysis of guest tech-nologies in the lodging industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant AdministrationQuarterly 48 (3), 299–312.

hristensen, L.T., Firat, A.F., Cornelissen, J., 2009. New tensions and challenges inintegrated communications. Corporate Communications: An International Jour-nal 14 (2), 207–219.

obb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A., Donthu, N., 1995. Brand equity, brand preferenceand purchase intent. Journal of Advertising 24 (3), 25–40.

elgado-Ballester, E., Navarro, A., Sicilia, M., 2012. Revitalising brands throughcommunication messages: the role of brand familiarity. European Journal ofMarketing 46 (1), 31–51.

enizci, B., Tasci, A.D.A., 2010. Modeling the commonly-assumed relationshipbetween human capital and brand equity in tourism. Journal of HospitalityMarketing & Management 19 (6), 610–628.

ewhirst, T., Davis, B., 2005. Brand strategy and integrated marketing communi-cations (IMC). a case study of player’s cigarette brand marketing. Journal ofAdvertising 34 (4), 81–92.

innie, K., Melewar, T.C., Seidenfuss, K.U., Musa, G., 2010. Nation branding andintegrated marketing communications: an ASEAN perspective. InternationalMarketing Review 27 (4), 388–403.

ioko, L., So, S.I.A., 2012. Branding destinations versus branding hotels in a gamingdestination - examining the nature and significance of co-branding effects inthe case study of Macao. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31(2), 554–563.

uncan, T.R., Moriarty, S.E., 1997. Driving brand value. Using integrated marketingto manage profitable stakeholder relationships. McGraw-Hill, New York.

dmiston-Strasser, D.M., 2009. An examination of integrated marketing communi-cation in U.S. public institutions of higher education. Journal of Marketing forHigher Education 19 (2), 142–165.

hrenberg, A.S.C., Barnard, N., Kennedy, R., Bloom, H., 2002. Brand advertising ascreative publicity. Journal of Advertising Research 42 (4), 7–18.

lliott, R., Boshoff, C., 2008. The influence of business orientations in small tourismbusinesses on the success of integrated marketing communication. Manage-ment Dynamics 17 (4), 32–46.

arrell, A.M., 2010. Insufficient discriminant validity: a comment on Bove, Pervan,Beatty and Shiu (2009). Journal of Business Research 63 (3), 324–327.

ornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unob-servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1), 39–50.

il-Saura, I., Ruiz-Molina, M.E., 2009. Customer segmentation based on commitmentand ICT use. Industrial Management & Data Systems 109 (2), 206–223.

ilbert, D., Powell-Perry, J., 2001. Exploring developments in Web based relation-ship marketing within the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing &Management 9 (3), 141–159.

ould, S.J., 2004. IMC as theory and as a poststructural set of practices and discourses:a continuously evolving paradigm shift. Journal of Advertising Research 44 (1),66–70.

urau, C., 2008. Integrated online marketing communication: implementation andmanagement. Journal of Communication Management 12 (2), 169–184.

am, S., Kim, W.G., Jeong, S., 2005. Effect of information technology on perfor-mance in upscale hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 24(2), 281–294.

ennessey, S.M., Yun, D., MacDonald, R., MacEachern, M., 2010. The effects of adver-tising awareness and media form on travel intentions. Journal of HospitalityMarketing & Management 19 (3), 217–243.

su, C.H.C., Oh, H., Assaf, A.G., 2012a. A customer-based brand equity model forupscale hotels. Journal of Travel Research 51 (1), 81–93.

su, T.H., Hung, L.C., Tang, J.W., 2012b. An analytical model for building brand equityin hospitality firms. Annals for Operations Research 195 (1), 355–378.

udson, S., 2008. Marketing for tourism and hospitality. a global perspective, 2nd

ed. Sage, London.yun, S.S., Kim, W., 2011. Dimensions of brand equity in the chain restaurant indus-

try. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 52 (4), 429–437.mrie, R., Fyall, A., 2000. Customer retention and loyalty in the independent mid-

market hotel sector. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 7 (3),39–54.

sraeli, A.A., Adler, N., Mehrez, A., Sundali, J.A., 2000. Investigating the use of advertis-ing for communicating a hotel’s strategic assets. Journal of Hospitality Marketing& Management 7 (3), 23–37.

ensen, M.B., Jepsen, A.L., 2008. Online marketing communications: need for a newtypology for IMC? Journal of Website Promotion 2 (1), 19–35.

andampully, J., Hu, H.H., 2007. Do hoteliers need to manage image to retain loyalcustomers? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19(6), 435–443.

andampully, J., Suhartanto, D., 2000. Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: therole of customer satisfaction and image. International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management 12 (6), 346–351.

andampully, J., Suhartanto, D., 2003. The role of customer satisfaction and image ingaining customer loyalty in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing& Management 10 (1/2), 3–25.

ality Management 39 (2014) 144–156 155

Kayaman, R., Arasli, H., 2007. Customer based brand equity: evidence from the hotelindustry. Managing Service Quality 17 (1), 92–109.

Keller, K.L., 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brandequity. Journal of Marketing 57 (1), 1–22.

Keller, K.L., 2003. Strategic brand management: building, measuring, and managingbrand equity, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.

Keller, K.L., 2009. Building strong brands in a modern marketing communicationsenvironment. Journal of Marketing Communications 15 (2/3), 139–155.

Kerr, G., Drennan, J., 2010. Same but different – perceptions of integrated market-ing communications among marketing communication partners in Australia.Journal of Promotion Management 16 (1), 6–24.

Kim, I., Han, D., Schultz, D.E., 2004. Understanding the diffusion of integrated mar-keting communication. Journal of Advertising Research 44 (1), 31–45.

Kim, W.G., Jin-Sun, B., Kim, H.J., 2008. Multidimensional customer-based brandequity and its consequences in midpriced hotels. Journal of Hospitality &Tourism Research 32 (2), 235–254.

Kim, W.G., Kim, H.B., 2004. Measuring customer-based restaurant brand equity:investigating the relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance.Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 45 (2), 115–131.

Kim, H.B., Kim, W.G., 2005. The relationship between brand equity and firms’performance in luxury hotels and restaurants. Tourism Management 26 (4),549–560.

Kim, H.B., Kim, W.G., An, J.A., 2003. The effect of customer-based brand equityon firms’ financial performance. Journal of Customer Marketing 20 (4),335–351.

Kimpakorn, N., Tocquer, G., 2010. Service brand equity and employee brand com-mitment. Journal of Services Marketing 24 (5), 378–388.

Kitchen, P.J., Brignell, J., Li, T., Jones, G.S., 2004. The emergence of IMC: a theoreticalperspective. Journal of Advertising Research 44 (1), 19–30.

Kitchen, P.J., Schultz, D.E., 2009. IMC: New horizon/false dawn for a marketplace inturmoil? Journal of Marketing Communications 15 (2/3), 197–204.

Kliatchko, J., 2005. Towards a new definition of integrated marketing communica-tions (IMC). International Journal of Advertising 24 (1), 7–34.

Kliatchko, J., 2009. IMC 20 years after: a second look at IMC definitions. InternationalJournal of Integrated Marketing Communications 1 (2), 7–12.

Kulluvaara, C., Tornberg, J., 2003. Integrated Marketing Communication andTourism. A case Study of Icehotel (Bachelor’s Thesis). Retrieved fromhttp://epubl.ltu.se/1404-5508/2003/138/LTU-SHU-EX-03138-SE.pdf.

Law, R., Jogaratnam, G., 2005. A study of hotel information technology applica-tions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 17 (2),170–180.

Lee, D.H., Park, C.W., 2007. Conceptualization and measurement of multidimension-ality of integrated marketing communications. Journal of Advertising Research47 (3), 222–236.

Lee, J.W., Kim, H.B., 2009. Impacts of perception to alliance companies on hotel’sbrand equity according to the types of vertical integration. International Journalof Tourism Sciences 9 (2), 1–21.

Lee, S., Connolly, D.J., 2010. The impact of IT news on hospitality firm value usingcumulative abnormal returns (CARs). International Journal of Hospitality Man-agement 29 (3), 354–362.

Lee, S.C., Barker, S., Kandampully, J., 2003. Technology, service quality, and customerloyalty in hotels: Australian managerial perspectives. Managing Service Quality13 (5), 423–432.

Li, L., Lee, H.A., Law, R., 2012. Technology-mediated management learning in hos-pitality organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31 (2),451–457.

Madhavaram, S., Badrinarayanan, V., McDonald, R.E., 2005. Integrated marketingcommunication (IMC) and brand identity as critical components of brand equitystrategy: a conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Adver-tising 34 (4), 69–80.

Malhotra, N.K., Agarwal, J., Peterson, M., 1996. Methodological issues in cross-cultural marketing research: a state-of-the-art review. International MarketingReview 13 (5), 7–43.

Malik, M.E., Naeem, B., 2011. Interrelationship between customer based brandequity constructs: empirical evidence from hotel industry of Pakistan.Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business 3 (4),795–804.

Mallinckrodt, B., Wang, C.C., 2004. Quantitative methods for verifying semanticequivalence of translated research instruments: a Chinese version of the expe-riences in close relationships scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology 51 (3),368–379.

McGrath, J.M., 2005. A pilot study testing aspects of the integrated market-ing communications concept. Journal of Marketing Communications 11 (3),191–214.

Mulhern, F., 2009. Integrated marketing communications: From media channels todigital connectivity. Journal of Marketing Communications 15 (2/3), 85–101.

Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., Whyatt, G., 2011. Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumersatisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research 38 (3), 1009–1030.

Nel, J.D.W., North, E.J., Mybur, T., Hern, L., 2009. A comparative study of customer-based brand equity across selected South African hotels. International Retail andMarketing Review 5 (1), 15–24.

Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., 1994. Psychometric theory, 3rd ed. McGraw Hill, NewYork.

Olsen, M.D., West, J., Tse, E., 1998. Strategic management in the hospitality industry,2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

1 Hospit

P

P

R

R

R

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

56 M. Seric et al. / International Journal of

eltier, J., Schibrowsky, J., Schultz, D.E., 2003. Interactive integrated marketingcommunication: combining the power of IMC, the new media and databasemarketing. International Journal of Advertising 22 (1), 93–115.

rasad, K., Dev, C.S., 2000. Managing hotel brand equity: a customer-centric frame-work for assessing performance. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant AdministrationQuarterly 41 (3), 22–31.

eid, M., 2002. Building strong brands through the management of integrated mar-keting communications. International Journal of Wine Marketing 14 (3), 37–52.

eid, M., 2005. Performance auditing of integrated marketing communications (IMC)actions and outcomes. Journal of Advertising 34 (4), 41–54.

uiz-Molina, M.E., Gil-Saura, I., Moliner-Velázquez, B., 2011. Does technology makea difference? Evidence from Spanish hotels. Service Business 5 (1), 1–12.

ahadev, S., Islam, N., 2005. Why hotels adopt ICTs: a study on the ICT adoptionpropensity of hotels in Thailand. International Journal of Contemporary Hospi-tality Management 17 (5), 391–401.

chultz, D.E., 1993. Integration helps you plan communications from outside-in.Marketing News 27 (6), 12.

chultz, D.E., 1999. Integrated marketing communications and how it relates totraditional media advertising. In: Jones, J.P. (Ed.), The Advertising Business:Operations, Creativity, Media Planning, Integrated Communications. Sage, Lon-don, pp. 325–338.

hultz, D.E., 1994. Trying to determine ROI for IMC (Part 1). Marketing News 28 (1),18.

igala, M., 2003. The information and communication technologies productivityimpact on the UK hotel sector. International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement 23 (10), 1224–1245.

igala, M., 2012. Web 2.0 and customer involvement in new service development: Aframework, cases and implications in tourism. In: Sigala, N., Christou, E., Gretzel,

U. (Eds.), Web 2.0 in Travel, Tourism and Hospitality: Theory, Practice and Cases.Ashgate Publishing Limited, London, pp. 25–38.

iguaw, J.A., Enz, C.A., Namasivayam, K., 2000. Adoption of information technologyin U.S. hotels: strategically driven objectives. Journal of Travel Research 39 (2),192–201.

ality Management 39 (2014) 144–156

Skinner, H., 2005. Wish you were here? Some problems associated with integratingmarketing communications when promoting place brands. Place Branding 1 (3),299–315.

So, K.K.G., King, C., 2010. When experience matters: building and measuring hotelbrand equity. The customers’ perspective. International Journal of Contempo-rary Hospitality Management 22 (5), 589–608.

Sun, L.B., Ghiselli, R., 2010. Developing an empirical model of hotel brand equitybased on Aaker’s perspective. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality andTourism 11 (3), 147–161.

Seric, M., Gil-Saura, I., 2011. Integrated marketing communications and informa-tion and communication technology in the hotel sector: an analysis of their useand development in Dalmatian first-class and luxury hotels. Journal of Retail &Leisure Property 9 (5), 401–414.

Seric, M., Gil-Saura, I., 2012a. ICT, IMC, and brand equity in high-quality hotels ofDalmatia: an analysis from guest perceptions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing& Management 21 (8), 821–851.

Seric, M., Gil-Saura, I., 2012b. Integrated marketing communications in high-qualityhotels of Central and Southern Dalmatia: A study from the perspective of man-agers and guests. Trziste-Market 24 (1), 67–83.

Tasci, A.D.A., Denizci-Guillet, B., 2011. It affects, it affects not: a quasi-experiment onthe transfer effect of co-branding on consumer-based brand equity of hospitalityproducts. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30 (4), 774–782.

Verma, R., Stock, D., McCarthy, L., 2012. Customer preferences for online, socialmedia, and mobile innovations in the hospitality industry. Cornell HospitalityQuarterly 53 (3), 183–186.

Wang, Y.J., Wu, C., Yuan, J., 2009. The role of integrated marketing communica-tions (IMC) on heritage destination visitations. Journal of Quality Assurance inHospitality & Tourism 10 (3), 218–231.

Xu, J.B., Chan, A., 2010. A conceptual framework of hotel experience and customer-based brand equity. Some research questions and implications. InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22 (2), 174–193.

Yoo, B., Donthu, N., 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research 52 (1), 1–14.