Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Destination brand authenticity: What an experiential simulacrum! A

multigroup analysis of its antecedents and outcomes through official
online platforms
Jano Jim�enez-Barreto *, Natalia Rubio, Sara Campo
Department of Finance and Marketing Research, Business Studies, College of Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Aut�
onoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Tourists’ intensive use of information and communication technologies when planning travel has forced desti­
Online authenticity nation marketing organizations to design online simulacra of destinations in multiple formats. We focus our
Destination brand authenticity study on official online destination platforms to analyze preliminary experiences with destination brands and the
Destination brand
online perception of authenticity. Previous consumption studies have theorized that consumers’ encounters with
Destination website
Destination social media
products/services are antecedents of their perceptions of authenticity. In the tourism literature, however, the link
Destination brand experience between online destination experiences and online destination authenticity constitutes a research gap. To fill that
gap, we used a multimethod approach to develop a causal-predictive model by which we observed that the online
destination brand experience directly affects destination brand authenticity. The findings also show that both of
these constructs directly and indirectly influence users’ behavioral intentions toward the destination. We
examine the moderating role of various official online destination platforms to enrich the theoretical and
managerial implications discussed.

1. Introduction communicate and interact with destination content in the form of

multi-sensory stimuli and, secondly, because tourists have the possibil­
We seem to have transformed an attraction for authenticity with one ity of creating and sharing their travel stories through these official
for fidelity. We are more interested in whether things look real than platforms, especially on social media (Hays, Page, & Buhalis, 2013).
whether they are real. Both elements—online experience and interactive communication—­
make official online platforms a pre-visit tool by which the destination’s
–(Ellard (2015)), Places of the Heart: The Psychogeography of Everyday cultural and promotional aspects are simulated, critiqued, shared, and
Life consumed in a manner similar to tourists’ consumption of other types of
Information and communication technologies have completely tourist products/experiences (e.g., festivals, rituals, souvenirs, textiles,
transformed how tourist destinations are promoted online. In the phases gastronomy, and historical heritage).
of gathering information and making decisions about where to travel, Recent studies on virtual tourism suggest that pre-visit destination
the relationships between tourists and destinations are now character­ experiences through online platforms can be sufficiently relevant to
ized by online and bi-directional communication (Choi, Hickerson, & shape tourists’ perceptions of the destination’s authenticity (Mura,
Kerstetter, 2018). Given this situation, destination marketing organi­ Tavakoli, & Sharif, 2017). Although the shaping of tourists’ perceptions
zations are increasingly directing marketing efforts and resources to­ of destination authenticity has been a hotly debated topic in tourism (e.
ward official online platforms (e.g., the web and social media) (Zhang, g., Chhabra, 2008; Cohen, 1988; Comaroff & Comaroff, 2011; Mac­
Gordon, Buhalis, & Ding, 2018). From the destination marketing Cannell, 1976; Wang, 1999), the study of authenticity perceptions as a
standpoint, official online platforms are of particular importance result of online experiences with the destination currently represents a
because they constitute an experiential setting where tourists void in the literature (Mura et al., 2017; Tavakoli & Mura, 2015). In the
context of promoting destination brands, it seems paradoxical that, even

* Corresponding author. Department of Finance and Marketing Research, Business Studies, College of Economics and Business Administration, Universidad
Aut�
onoma de Madrid, Ctra Colmenar, C/Francisco Tom� as y Valiente, N� 5, ES 28049, Madrid, Spain.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Jim�
enez-Barreto), [email protected] (N. Rubio), [email protected] (S. Campo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104022
Received 21 June 2019; Received in revised form 7 September 2019; Accepted 26 October 2019
Available online 6 November 2019
0261-5177/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

as the marketing literature demonstrates the importance and influence cultural consumption) and a system of standardization by which those
of concepts such as brand experience (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, tourist objects can be authenticated. For example, tourists may describe
2009) and perceived brand authenticity ((Napoli, Dickinson-Delaporte, tourist products for sale as authentic or inauthentic depending on
& Beverland, 2016)), models that jointly analyze these two con­ whether they were made by local individuals following a set of estab­
structs and their repercussions on tourists’ behavioral intentions toward lished and identifiable traditional practices (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006).
the destination are practically non-existent. By contrast, the constructivist perspective on authenticity in tourism
In the interest of bridging this gap detected in the literature, the two takes the objectivist view further by arguing that authenticity judgments
main objectives of this study are (a) to identify the influence of the refer to non-object elements, especially representations and practices
online destination brand experience (formed on official online plat­ that are of a cultural, social, or religious nature (or for tourist enter­
forms) on perceived destination brand authenticity and (b) to analyze tainment) and are associated with a certain place or group of individuals
the effects of these two constructs (online destination brand experience (Wang, 1999). Following this description, which MacCannell (1973) and
and destination brand authenticity) on tourists’ behavioral intentions Crick (1989) call staged authenticity, the perception of authenticity arises
toward the destination. Regarding the formation of destination brand in response to a tourist experience that is constructed and initially
authenticity, we discuss studies of brand authenticity (e.g., Fritz, designed to be a cultural and commercial exchange in which there exists
Schoenmueller, & Bruhn, 2017; Morhart, Mala €r, Gu�evremont, & Groh­ a shared understanding of what is and is not accepted as authentic, ac­
mann, 2015; Napoli et al., 2016) and theories of tourist destination cording to the symbolic elements that constitute that experience (Kolar
authenticity (e.g., Chhabra, Healy, & Sills, 2003; Kolar & Zabkar, 2010; & Zabkar, 2010). An example is the re-creation, as a tourist lure, of tribal
Wang, 1999). In the case of online destination brand experience, this dances outside the presumed original territory where they were tradi­
study debates concepts such as brand experience (Brakus et al., 2009) tionally performed, a re-creation that relies on the use of local artists
and destination brand experience (e.g., Barnes, Mattison, & Soresen, together with the portrayed tribe’s characteristic musical instruments
2014; Jim� enez-Barreto, Rubio, & Campo-Martínez, 2019a; and textiles.
Jim�enez-Barreto, Sthapit, Rubio, & Campo, 2019b). The final theoretical Finally, authenticity has also been analyzed through an existentialist
model is evaluated empirically through a multimethod analysis for approach, in which it results from an individual’s internal and subjective
which four studies were carried out—the development of a destination responses while experiencing the destination’s physical or symbolic el­
brand authenticity measurement scale (studies 1, 2, and 3A); a model of ements during any stage of the tourist experience (pre-visit, in situ, post-
causal relationships through an online experiment (study 3A); and a visit) (Wang, 1999). This approach supposes that authenticity is a psy­
multigroup analysis (study 3B)—to determine the moderating effect in chological factor by which individuals give meaning to their own
the proposed theoretical model of the previous use of four distinct online self-conception (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and self-awareness (Kernis &
destination platforms (the official website, Instagram, Facebook, and Goldman, 2006) (e.g., of being authentic and/or experiencing some­
YouTube). thing authentic) on the basis of internal and subjective interpretations
This study’s theoretical contributions are based on its pioneering derived from their experiences (Illouz, 2017).
development of a measurement scale for destination brand authenticity Currently, because information and communication technologies are
as well as on an analysis of its antecedents and consequences. Further­ heavily used in finding information and making decisions about where
more, this study’s contributions will give destination brand managers a to travel, studies on authenticity are beginning to question how desti­
tool for evaluating the online destination brand experience and the nation authenticity is formed based on contact with online platforms
perceived destination brand authenticity that tourists gather through and technological devices that simulate and promote visiting the desti­
contact with official online platforms. nation in person (Mura et al., 2017; Tavakoli & Mura, 2015). In this
context, the existentialist perspective on authenticity is especially rele­
2. Destination brand authenticity and experience vant in explaining the phenomenon. Specifically, studies on the online
authenticity of virtual attractions and/or destinations point out that
2.1. Destination brand authenticity individuals do not require an objectifiable demonstration, whether
figurative or socially constructed, to experience authenticity. By
Achieving consensus on a global definition of authenticity in tourism contrast, a product, cultural phenomenon, or social practice can come to
is a complex task due to the fact that this phenomenon has been linked to be false or be mediated by technological devices and yet be able to
multiple factors that intervene in the shaping of the tourist’s percep­ transmit enough meaning that individuals are able to internally and
tions, motivations, and expectations regarding the destination (Costa & subjectively perceive that it is authentic (Hall, 2007). This approach
Bambossy, 2001). These factors range from interaction with and con­ implies a conversation about two aspects of tourism: first, the lessening
sumption of tourist offerings (e.g., souvenirs, textiles, and gastronomic of the importance of corporality (the body) as a direct path through
products) to cultural representations of destinations beyond their bor­ which one experiences the authenticity of a destination (Tavakoli &
ders (e.g., tourist events, travel and tourism fairs, dances, concerts, and Mura, 2015) and, second, the rise of the mediating influence of online
tourist performances) (Cohen, 1988). In the latter case, simulating and platforms (such as websites, destinations’ social media, and
staging a tourist destination’s cultural and promotional aspects appear virtual-reality applications) on interacting with and discovering a
fundamentally as political and marketing tools to encourage the moti­ destination (Mura et al., 2017). The duality implicit in these two aspects
vation to travel (Silver, 1993). As a result, authenticity in tourism has of tourism—the destination’s physical reality vis-� a-vis its virtual reali­
been defined as a motivational force (MacCannell, 1976), a perception ty—reinforces Baudrillard’s (1970, 1994) idea of simulacra, in which the
(Cohen, 1988), a value (Olsen, 2002), a claim (Peterson, 2005), and a perception of authenticity and what is deemed to be real can be found in
choice that tourists make about a destination (Reisinger & Steiner, simulations of the physical world, for example, through pre-designed
2006). online environments. Recent studies have found that the simulation
The conversation around how the perception of authenticity in and digital reproduction of a destination through technological inter­
tourism is formed has traditionally been presented from three theoret­ mediation complements the physical tourist experience and constitutes
ical perspectives: objectivist, constructivist, and existentialist. From the determining factors in the creation of an intention to visit the destina­
objectivist standpoint, authenticity is interpreted according to objective, tion in person (Jim� enez-Barreto et al., 2019a; Mura et al., 2017).
measurable, and identifiable properties resulting from interaction with
tourist objects (e.g., souvenirs, textiles, or other tourist arts) (Wang, 2.1.1. Toward a model of destination brand authenticity
1999). As a result, two elements are simultaneously generated in the The most critical positions on the perception of authenticity consider
process of shaping the perception of authenticity: a tourist object (or that any exercise in commodifying a tourist experience triggers a loss of

2
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

naturality and, therefore, of the authenticity of that phenomenon (e.g., commodification of destinations (Cole, 2007; Goulding, 2000), desti­
Comaroff & Comaroff, 2011; Halewood & Hannam, 2001). However, nations’ brands are created by a signaling process regarding a particular
authors such as Kolar and Zabkar (2010) have developed a model of place for which there is a promotional discourse about objects, symbols,
perceived authenticity from the consumer’s point of view that chal­ and ideas linked to diverse benefits for tourists (Ritchie & Ritchie, 1998,
lenges the most critical positions on cultural commodification as a pp. 89–116; Watson & Kopachevsky, 1994). Hence, an ontological
tourist offering. These authors define authenticity as “an evaluative parallelism is considered plausible between both: (a) how brand
judgment that pertains to tourist experiences with a certain site, culture, authenticity has been measured in the marketing literature as a conse­
object or destination” (Kolar & Zabkar, 2010, p. 655). In this way, the quence of consumer experiences with products and services (Bruhn
commodification of the tourist experience is analyzed as a way by which et al., 2012; Fritz et al., 2017; Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Morhart et al.,
cultural practices and a destination’s heritage generate a particular 2015; Napoli et al., 2016); and (b) how destination brand authenticity
value to visitors (Goulding, 2000). Other authors add that the perception can be formed during tourists’ encounters with destinations’ brands on
of a tourist destination/attraction’s authenticity can take diverse forms, official platforms. In this research, it is argued that the discourses of
including the form of an experience mediated by technological devices existential authenticity (Wang, 1999) and brand iconic authenticity
(Peterson, 2005). Thus, several tourism studies have begun to shed light (Davis, Sheriff, & Owen, 2019; Grayson & Martinec, 2004) converge in
on the relationship between the various forms of representation, simu­ an assembly to explicate how tourists internally and subjectively
lation, and consumption provided by online destinations and the perceive destination brand authenticity from the experience of browsing
perception of authenticity derived from the same (Guttentag, 2010; destinations’ official platforms. To that end, this study proposes an
Mura et al., 2017). adaptation of the brand authenticity model to the context of the desti­
Along the same lines, and taking an existentialist approach, this nation brand, keeping in line with the three principle dimensions thus
study considers that if the destination utilizes its brand as a (semiotic) far identified in the marketing literature (Bruhn et al., 2012; Fritz et al.,
source of stimuli and experiences through its official online platforms, 2017; Morhart et al., 2015; Napoli et al., 2016): the brand’s temporal
tourists can shape their perceptions of the destination’s authenticity consistency, the degree of perceived credibility, and the degree of
even without having physically visited the site. The destination brand is perceived originality.
designed in an effort to frame the marketing discourse around objects,
symbols, and experiences that are in some way beneficial to tourists a) First, the temporal consistency of the destination brand may be
(Watson & Kopachevsky, 1994). Therefore, when tourists come into defined based on the destination’s capacity to transcend current
contact with the destination brand and the accompanying ensemble of travel trends and maintain its appeal to visitors independently of the
stimuli in virtual environments that offer experiences (i.e., images, passage of time (see Bruhn et al., 2012; Morhart et al., 2015). The
videos, and texts on the official webpage or social media; importance of this concept as a creator of perceptions of authenticity
Jim�enez-Barreto et al., 2019a), they can be provided with enough lies in the capacity of the destination brand to transmit a sense of
components to form an internal and subjective perception of whether history and nostalgia to the territory it represents, which is, as a
the destination is authentic. result, easily associated with certain cultural traditions, beliefs, and
heritages and a specific local identity (Chhabra et al., 2003).
2.1.2. The authenticity of a brand b) Second, destination brand credibility corresponds to the level of
The marketing literature has developed several proposals to measure transparency and honesty that tourists perceive in relation to the
perceived brand authenticity. Fritz et al. (2017) distinguish between destination’s capacity to meet the expectations created (see the
indexical authenticity and iconic authenticity. Indexical authenticity original proposal in Morhart et al., 2015). Consequently, destination
corresponds to the consumer’s perception of the degree to which a brand credibility should consider the degree to which the promotion
product/service associated with a brand faithfully reflects a series of of the destination and its brand are in line with a realistic and
attributes that are objective, measurable, and evident regarding its coherent perception of what a tourist can experience upon visiting
originality/authenticity and that correspond to a process, also recog­ the destination in person (Beverland & Luxton, 2005).
nizable, by which one is able to authenticate the said commodities (e.g., c) Finally, the destination brand’s degree of originality constitutes the
by labels denoting originality or designation of origin). extent to which the brand is able to effectively transmit all its sym­
On the other hand, iconic authenticity identifies emotional percep­ bolic aspects though various stimuli (e.g., images, texts, videos, au­
tions—imagined and experienced internally and subjectively by the dios, and the design of online user interfaces) that allow the brand to
consumer—in which there is no need of a measurable parameter of what be perceived as unique, natural, genuine, and not artificial (Bruhn
would be accepted as authentic in a given context. Rather, the experi­ et al., 2012; Morhart et al., 2015).
ential perception allows an individual to experience something as
authentic. Coming from this approach, in which objective and subjective 2.2. The online destination brand experience
aspects are seen as complementary to the creation of brand authenticity
(Fritz et al., 2017), several authors propose measurement models with The brand, in the context of promoting a destination, constitutes the
similar dimensions by which they identify three principle categories: set of meanings and experiences that express a promise of value about a
brand temporal consistency (continuity through time and the brand’s particular place as an element of differentiation (Morgan, Pritchard, &
capacity to maintain its heritage appeal), brand credibility (the level of Piggott, 2003). Accordingly, destination brands should transmit the
honesty and reliability transmitted to consumers by the brand), and promise of a memorable travel experience that is clearly associated with
brand originality (the degree to which the brand communicates natu­ that particular destination in order to be successful and to differentiate
ralness, sincerity, and integrity to consumers) (Bruhn, Schoenmüller, the brand from the competition (Hudson & Ritchie, 2009). Recently,
Sch€afer, & Heinrich, 2012; Fritz et al., 2017; Morhart et al., 2015; Napoli studies such as those of Barnes et al. (2014) and Kumar and Kaushik
et al., 2016). (2018) have looked at tourists’ destination brand experiences after their
Even though, from a marketing perspective, the perception of brand in-person visits through their sensory, intellectual, behavioral, and af­
authenticity has been considered an element of value and differentiation fective responses. For example, tourists may enjoy the sights, sounds,
(Gilmore & Pine, 2007), there is a surprising lack of qualitative and and tastes of a local market, enjoy a stroll along the coast, strike up a
quantitative studies on destination brand authenticity. Due to this gap, it conversation with locals, and engage in a tourist activity such as a camel
is important, both from an academic point of view and for destination ride as well as perceive an enjoyable welcome in a hotel, restaurant, or
marketing managers, to evaluate a possible measurement of destination tourist attraction during a trip to the destination.
brand authenticity. In this sense, as part of the effect of the The concept of destination brand experience arises from an

3
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

adaptation by Barnes et al. (2014) of Brakus et al.’s (2009) pioneering Lee et al. (2010) and Lee and Gretzel (2012) find evidence that the visual
concept of brand experience. In the marketing literature, brand experi­ and textual stimuli found on the destination’s official website stimulate
ence is defined as the consumer’s internal and subjective response when cognitive processes in users, leading to a positive attitude toward the
coming into contact with a brand, upon making a purchase, upon website and the destination. Second, reflecting Brakus et al.’s (2009)
entering a store, through publicity, or at a brand event. Brand experi­ definition of the affective dimension of brand experience, Zhang et al.
ence, in tourism as well as in marketing, has been measured through a (2018) propose a measurement of users’ emotional experiences with the
multidimensional approach in which four dimensions are considered destination upon browsing its website and social media. In this case, the
(Barnes et al., 2014; Brakus et al., 2009): (a) sensory (brand-related emotional experience with the destination is defined according to the
stimuli that can be perceived by consumers through their senses), (b) user’s pleasure and stimulation when in contact with the destination
intellectual (thoughts, creativity, and imagination evoked while in online.
contact with the brand), (c) behavioral (physical experiences and motor In summary, the studies carried out up to now reveal a scarcity of
actions derived from contact with the brand), and (d) affective (the research in the literature addressing the destination brand experience on
consumer’s emotions and feelings in relation to the brand). Further­ official online platforms and, at the same time, reveal a lack of knowl­
more, brand experience can be positive or negative as well as fleeting or edge about which dimensions of the online destination brand experience
enduring (Reicheld, 1996). Applied to consumer contexts, brand expe­ can be measured in a comparative study of both situations: in encounters
rience has demonstrated a positive influence on consumer satisfaction with the destinations’ website and on official social media platforms. In
(Brakus et al., 2009), on attitude toward the brand (Zarantonello & the interest of filling the detected gap, in this paper we take Brakus
Schmitt, 2010), on loyalty (Carù & Cova, 2003), and on brand associa­ et al.’s (2009) brand experience approach, using its four dimensions
tions (Brakus et al., 2009). In analyzing brand experience after a tour­ (sensory, intellectual, behavioral, and affective) as the best starting
ist’s visit to the destination in person, Barnes et al. (2014), Beckman, points for examining users’ internal and subjective responses when in
Kumar, and Kim (2013), and Kumar and Kaushik (2018) have found a contact with destination brand content on official online platforms.
positive effect of the destination brand experience (sensory, intellectual,
behavioral, and affective) on satisfaction with the destination, intention 3. Hypotheses and research question
to revisit, loyalty, and intention to recommend.
Traditionally, studies that have developed the multidimensional 3.1. Online brand experience and destination authenticity
frame of brand experience (e.g., Barnes et al., 2014; Brakus et al., 2009)
have focused on offline contexts. However, as individuals are more Academic studies in tourism that adopt an experiential perspective in
frequently making use of online platforms in their personal and pro­ analyzing users’ navigation of official online platforms have determined
fessional relationships, brands need to further examine how to design that, both for websites (Jim�enez-Barreto et al., 2019a; Lee et al., 2010;
online experiences that are relevant and appealing to online consumers. Lee & Gretzel, 2012) and for social media (Boley, Jordan, Kline, &
Following this approach, several authors have adapted the brand Knollenber, 2018), a positive online user experience is an important
experience model from Brakus et al. (2009) to evaluate consumer con­ antecedent to the intention to visit and recommend a destination (Zhang
tact with brands’ websites and social media (e.g., Bleier, Harmeling, & et al., 2018). Taking the destination website as the unit of analysis,
Palmatier, 2019; Chen, Papazafeiropoulou, Chen, Duan, & Liu, 2014; authors Lee et al. (2010), Lee and Gretzel (2012), and Jim� enez-Barreto
Smith, 2013). These studies conclude, in the first place, that, in the case et al. (2019a) find evidence suggesting that sensory stimuli on websites
of a brand’s website, a positive online brand experience will positively have a positive effect on the user’s intellectual/cognitive experience.
affect user confidence in and satisfaction with the brand (Rajaobelina, These authors add that the intellectual/cognitive experience positively
2018) in addition to increasing intentions to make an online purchase influences the user’s attitude toward the destination and the intention to
(Bleier et al., 2019). Furthermore, in the context of the brand experience visit and recommend it. Apart from the website, other studies show that
on social media, Chen et al. (2014) and Smith (2013) show that online user interaction with destination content shared by other tourists on
brand experience is capable of influencing customer brand attachment social media, in addition to being in contact with the destination online,
as well as loyalty and intention to recommend the brand (Chen et al., is a relevant predictor of intention to visit and recommend (Boley,
2014). In the marketing literature, however, studies of the online brand Jordan, Kline, & Knollenberg, 2018; Zhang et al., 2018). In this study,
experience in social media are still very scarce, and the studies that have both the intention to visit and the intention to recommend are defined
been done explore a limited set of aspects linked to diverse dimensions according to the tourist’s behavioral intentions toward the destination
of the brand experience that consumers encounter when navigating a (Chen & Tsai, 2007). Therefore, we propose hypothesis H1:
brand’s social media (Smith, 2013) or offer instruments of measurement
H1. The online destination brand experience positively affects tourists’
that do not contemplate the multidimensionality of the concept (Chen
behavioral intentions toward the destination.
et al., 2014).
In the online context of tourist destinations, up to the present time, In the academic literature on tourist experiences, proposals have
only Jim� enez-Barreto et al. (2019a) have, taking a quantitative emerged for the systematic analysis of the effects of so-called virtual
approach, adopted two of the four brand experience dimensions (sen­ tourism on a destination’s perceived authenticity. Virtual tourism has
sory and intellectual/cognitive) developed by Brakus et al. (2009). been defined from various perspectives; it is a phenomenon by which it
Specifically, these authors consider the online destination brand expe­ is possible for tourists to be mentally transported (via technological
rience of the official website in an effort to determine its potential to mediation) to destinations where they can consequently receive and
encourage user intentions to visit and recommend the destination. interpret simulated sensory stimuli that attempt to portray the tourist
Following a qualitative approach, Jim�enez-Barreto et al. (2019b) add experience exactly as it would be during a visit in situ (Mura et al.,
that various dimensions of the online destination brand experience can 2017). Current technological capacity enables the construction of virtual
be observed when tourists are in contact with a destination’s official environments that, depending on the type of device used, can offer a
website (sensory, intellectual, behavioral, and affective) and social fairly wide range of simulated destination stimuli. Among these devices
media stimuli (sensory, intellectual, behavioral, affective, social, and are those that are identified as three-dimensional (virtual reality glasses,
interactive). Similarly, prior studies based on a different research augmented reality in combination with odor or flavor simulators) or as
perspective (e.g., Lee & Gretzel, 2012; Lee, Gretzel, & Law, 2010; Zhang two-dimensional devices (predominantly visual-auditory devices, such
et al., 2018) have considered the paradigm of brand experience in the as Web 2.0 or mobile applications). Using these technological devices,
study of the online destination experience on official platforms. First, in tourists can have relevant and unique tourist experiences with a desti­
relation to the dimension of sensory and intellectual brand experience, nation’s multimedia brand content (i.e., images, texts, videos, audios,

4
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

and combinations thereof; Hyun, Lee, & Hu, 2009) that enhance users’ platforms moderates the relationships among online destination brand
perceptions of that destination’s authenticity. Qualitatively, studies experience, destination brand authenticity, and behavioral intentions is
such as those by Mura et al. (2017) and Huertas (2018) point in this yet to be determined. Prior studies that offer a comparison of brands’
direction, although it is still necessary to align those studies with online platforms (e.g., social media) point out that each platform has its
quantitative models that reinforce theoretical discussions of the online own architecture, cultural use, and rules and that each offers something
experience of a destination and the perception of authenticity. Conse­ different in terms of how online brand content is produced and
quently, we propose the following research hypothesis: consumed (Roma & Aloini, 2019; Smith, Fichner, & Yongjian, 2012).
In relation to the destination brand, the official website allows
H2. Online destination brand experience positively affects destination
tourists to obtain relevant information for a visit, supported by a wide
brand authenticity.
range of stimuli stemming from videos, images, and texts. Furthermore,
Authenticity in tourism has been considered a direct antecedent to a destination’s social media offer a larger framework of interactive op­
tourist behavior in terms of motivation and interest to visit/consume tions among destination content, opinions, and user comments about the
tourist offerings/attractions (Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Ramkissoon & same. Likewise, differences arise in how users consume or create content
Uysal, 2011) in addition to being a direct antecedent to satisfaction with on diverse social media. For example, on a destination’s Facebook page,
the tourist experience at the destination (Cohen, 1979; MacCannell, tourists can comment, ask questions, and even share content (videos,
1973). In this study, we consider that the online destination brand texts, images, live streaming) about the destination with their friends
experience implies a virtual simulation whereby managers try to and acquaintances. A destination’s Instagram account, by contrast, is
maintain a set of meanings and symbols that differentiate the destina­ based on a pleasing visual layout that captivates visitors with high-
tion. Thus, and reflecting the concept of simulacra posed by Baudrillard quality photos as well as short video clips, with the possibility for
(1970, 1994), the perceptions of the authenticity of the online destina­ users to comment on them. Finally, social media such as YouTube are
tion and their repercussions on the user’s intentions toward the desti­ based on audiovisual communication through the opportunity of dis­
nation should be similar to those that arise in physical travel to the playing official destination videos along with user comments and
destination. Consequently, we propose as hypothesis H3 that the opinions of the same.
perception of the authenticity of a destination brand, through its theo­ From the standpoint of the formation of destination brand authen­
retical dimensions (temporal consistency, credibility, and brand origi­ ticity, the fact that user-generated content (UGC) about a destination, in
nality), will have a positive influence on the behavioral intentions of the its various formats (photos, videos, and textual narratives), is hypo­
destination’s online platform users as a result of a virtual experience thetically more credible than the destination’s official content and in­
with the destination brand (Huertas, 2018; Mura et al., 2017). formation (Huertas, 2018; Jacobsen & Munar, 2012) might lead us to
consider that perceived destination brand authenticity, in its dimension
H3. Destination brand authenticity has a positive effect on the
of credibility, would be greater for a destination’s social media users
behavioral intentions of the users of the destination’s official online
than for its website users. From the same perspective, users of the des­
platforms.
tination’s social media could form their perception of brand originality
to a greater extent than website users, considering that social media
3.2. The mediating effect of authenticity between the online destination
provide a high level of interactivity and communication between con­
brand experience and the tourist’s behavioral intentions
sumers and brands, leading to authentic engagement between them
(Solis, 2010). By contrast, the official nature of the destination’s website
In this study, destination brand authenticity is necessarily contingent
(Li, Robinson, & Oriade, 2017), derived from the high level of control
upon an existentialist approach to the concept of authenticity (Kolar &
over the content by destination brand managers, could strengthen the
Zabkar, 2010). This implies that authenticity is formed as a result of the
perception of the destination’s temporal consistency, as managers can
internal and subjective experiences and processes of individuals in
provide verified and moderated evidence of the destination’s heritage
response to stimuli presented by particular environments, objects, or
value and cultural appeal without including the noise generated by
combinations thereof (Illouz, 2017). In this approach, the sensory, in­
other users’ opinions and comments.
tellectual, behavioral, and affective experiences on a destination’s
From the perspective of the online destination brand experience and
website and social media could be sufficient stimuli to shape an in­
the importance of its dimensions (sensory, intellectual, behavioral, and
dividual’s authenticity judgments of the online destination brand. Ac­
affective), one of the plausible differences between a destination’s offi­
cording to theories in cognitive psychology, such as the
cial website and its social media could be understood in terms of the
sensations-perceptions theory (Agapito, Mendes, & Valle, 2013; Gold­
functional characteristics offered by the two types of platform. Some
stein, 2010; Krishna, 2012), perceived authenticity, understood as a
authors argue that social media have the capacity to provide richer and
cognitive evaluation, could represent the outcome of an initially sensory
more diverse information (Ko €ltringer & Dickinger, 2015) that would
(sensations) and later cognitive-emotional (perceptions) process
generate the need for more intense sensory and cognitive processing
inspired by the subjective experience of coming into contact with a
(Molinillo, Li�ebana-Cabanillas, Anaya-S� anchez, & Buhalis, 2018). On
destination’s online multimedia content. As a result of this, individuals
the destination website, however, a manager can freely and dynamically
would show a response to the destination in the form of attitudes, in­
use various types of interfaces and multimedia entertainment elements
sights, memory, and behavioral intentions (Agapito et al., 2013). Based
(e.g., interactive games, high-quality videos, and 360� -view applica­
on the aforementioned sequence, it may be posited that destination
tions) as well as collect testimonials and multimedia content from
brand authenticity is a mediator between the online destination brand
tourists who have visited the destination, making it possible to offer an
experience and behavioral intentions toward the destination, and thus
online brand experience equally relevant at the sensory, intellectual,
we propose the following:
behavioral, and affective levels. In the comparable case of social media,
H4. Destination brand authenticity plays a mediating role between the differences in the importance of the online destination brand experience
online destination brand experience and the behavioral intentions of on each platform could be traced back to the type and diversity of
users of the destination’s official online platforms. multimedia content on display to users. For example, a destination’s
Facebook page allows high-quality, long-duration videos to be presented
3.3. Moderating effects of the use of a destination’s various online as well as a wide range of images, permitting the creation of highly
platforms sensory experiences that are affective (due to the video content) and
intellectual/cognitive (due to the user effort needed to process the
The degree to which the use of each of a destination’s official online available multimedia stimuli). Conversely, social media such as

5
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

Instagram facilitate the display of images while videos are supported in authenticity, and behavioral intentions. Finally, study 3B analyzes the
only limited formats, such as, for example, short videos or the sharing of moderating effects of each official destination platform that tourists had
stories based on a compilation of short videos. Therefore, it is to be previously used.
expected that a destination’s Instagram account fundamentally stands
out in its ability to produce a sensory experience with the destination 4.1. Study 1. Generation of items on the destination brand authenticity
brand, over and above the other types of experience. scale—online projective techniques with North American tourists
As the academic tourism literature still does not know the possible
moderating effects of the type of online platform used for finding The objective of study 1 was to evaluate North American tourists’
destination information on the relationships among online destination perceptions of a tourist destination’s authenticity after they were
brand experience, destination brand authenticity, and users’ behavioral exposed to stimuli from the destination’s promotional video (phase 1)
intentions, we propose the following research question: and static images of its official online platforms (phase 2). The purpose
RQ1. What effect do distinct online destination platforms have on the of this study was to obtain an initial reduction of the theoretical items
relationships among online destination brand experience, destination discussed previously in the literature, which constitute the dimensions
brand authenticity, and the user’s behavioral intentions? of the destination brand authenticity construct (temporal consistency,
credibility, and originality). Accordingly, we began with a total of 48
Fig. 1 presents all the hypotheses put forward as well as the research items pertaining to publications on brand authenticity by Bruhn et al.
question. (2012) and Fritz et al. (2017) (15 items), Morhart et al. (2015) (15
items), and (Napoli et al. (2016)) (18 items).
4. General overview of the study For this study, a group of 53 North Americans was recruited from the
crowdsourcing platform Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) (price per
Fig. 2, Represents a general overview of the set of empirical studies participant $1.05; 55% female; 19–67 years old, with an average age of
carried out on destination brand authenticity, online destination brand 32 years and an average annual income of $25,000–$40,000). The
experience, and tourists’ behavioral intentions when using official on­ MTurk participants were redirected through a link to online scenarios
line platforms. This paper incorporates a total of four studies using a previously designed in Qualtrics. The destination we chose for the pre­
multimethod approach. Owing to the scarcity of research on destination sentation of stimuli was Barcelona as it is one of the more visited Eu­
brand authenticity, we first carried out three studies following the ropean destinations of North American tourists (Barcelona City Council,
standard criteria for developing psychometric scales (Churchill, 1979; 2017; Statista, 2018a). Furthermore, North American tourists make up
Nunnally & Berstein, 1994) to verify the destination brand authenticity Barcelona’s most important visitor population with origins outside the
construct and its underlying dimensions: item generation (study 1); item European Union (Barcelona City Council, 2017).
reduction and construct validation (study 2); and analysis of the Study 1 was carried out in two phases based on qualitative online
discriminant validity, antecedents, and consequences of the construct projective techniques using the Qualtrics platform. In phase 1, a pro­
(study 3A). Study 3A includes a model of causal-predictive relationships motional video for Barcelona was presented, which served to contex­
among online destination brand experience, destination brand tualize the subject matter of the questions that would be presented after

Fig. 1. Conceptual model.

6
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

Fig. 2. Research program overview.

the video. After the video was presented to the participants, they were (main themes).
guided to define in writing their understanding of the authenticity of a
tourist destination according to their own criteria. In addition to writing 4.1.1. Qualitative analysis result, study 1
their responses on that concept, the participants were expected to add an The results of study 1 are presented according to the phases in which
example of a destination that met that definition. the narratives were obtained from the participants. In phase 1, using the
Subsequently, in phase 2, the participants were shown four images previously devised codes, three theoretical dimensions named in the
through which they could view Barcelona on each of its official online academic marketing literature on brand authenticity were concisely
platforms (website, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube)( Appendix A) . detected (temporal consistency, credibility, and originality). Regarding
These social media platforms were used in the study because they are the terms that allowed us to extract the dimension of temporal consis­
among the top social media in terms of penetration rate and number of tency, we find quotes from participants such as the following: “A tourist
users in the United States (Statista, 2018b). In this case, after viewing destination would be considered authentic if the place keeps tradi­
images of Barcelona’s various platforms, the participants were to select tional”; “A tourist destination that could be defined as authentic is Corfu,
one or more platforms on which the destination seemed especially Greece. It has a very rich history.” Another participant added: “The ar­
authentic to them and then to explain their selection in writing. The chitecture of an authentic destination needs to show some history and
main advantage of using projective techniques, rather than any other the culture must be a big part of the life surrounding the destination.”
type of qualitative technique, lies in the fact that the information that These comments clearly show the conceptualization of the brand’s
emerges as a result of presenting images and videos as well as capturing dimension of temporal consistency as a component of authenticity as
ideas through a free-writing exercise evokes the participants’ memory in seen in the ability of the destination brand to maintain its appeal by
a deep way, which allows us to gather narratives with a high level of presenting a historical narrative through time as has been previously
individualization (Harper, 2002). detected in the marketing literature (Morhart et al., 2015).
The analysis of the narratives obtained in phases 1 and 2 was carried Next, the dimension of destination credibility was extracted from
out using direct content analysis, a recommended technique for quotes such as the following: “An authentic tourist destination is when
analyzing components or theoretical dimensions associated with a there are actual inhabitants in the area not actors”; “To make a desti­
construct/concept (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). To process the data, three nation authentic, is just enough when enjoying the [location’s] true
types of manual coding were carried out: open, axial, and selective current self.” In this case, the participants emphasized that a destination
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In the open coding, we used line-by-line is credible when it is able to offer a high level of consistency between
analysis to select quotes from the participants’ narratives that demon­ what one experience during a physical visit and what is marketed as a
strated parallelism with the theoretical dimensions of brand authen­ representative tourist experience while also maintaining its customs and
ticity. Through the axial coding, the theoretical dimensions referenced cultural practices as part of its situational presentation to tourists
in the previously coded terms were distinguished one by one (sub-­ (Goffman, 1956). In view of this consideration, aspects such as the
themes). Finally, in the selective coding, we specifically extracted the set development of a marketing narrative that is sincere, not artificial, that
of theoretical dimensions that emerged from the participants’ narratives is far from being an imitation of other places and customs (a pastiche),

7
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

and that clearly references local cultural values and practices will be online platforms.
crucial for a destination to be perceived as credible. Finally, thanks to the analysis of the participants’ narratives, in study
Finally, the following quotes reflect the fact that a destination’s 1 we observed the expected theoretical dimensions of destination brand
authenticity is also supported by the degree to which it can offer the authenticity (temporal consistency, credibility, and originality).
tourist a unique and genuine element that is clearly distinguishable from Accordingly, we were able to refine the items that would correspond to
other destinations (e.g., heritage, cultural practices, or tourist art): “To the destination brand authenticity measurement scale. Out of a total of
be authentic it has to offer a unique and distinctive experience”; another 48 items that the academic marketing literature has developed as ele­
participant added, “Places to shop for local crafts and souve­ ments of brand authenticity, 12 items constituting destination brand
nirs—visitors usually want to bring back something memorable and authenticity were retained and divided among the three theoretical di­
unique as well as gifts.” mensions, with four items per dimension (temporal consistency ¼ four
Throughout phase 1, the coding that was done made it possible to items, credibility ¼ four items, and originality ¼ four items).
distinguish the degree to which each of the dimensions was present in
the participants’ written notes. In this way, according to what the par­
ticipants understood to be an authentic tourist destination, the dimen­ 4.2. Study 2. Refinement of the online destination brand authenticity
sion of destination brand authenticity that was most frequently named scale with Spanish tourists
was originality (33 participants; 62%), followed by temporal consis­
tency (23 participants; 43%) and finally credibility (seven participants; The main objectives of study 2 were: (a) to refine the destination
13%). Here, there were cases in which the participants named more than brand authenticity scale obtained in study 1 and (b) to comparatively
one of the analyzed dimensions of destination brand authenticity in their examine the ratings that tourists assign to the perceived authenticity of
texts. the destination brand and to their behavioral intentions toward it when
In phase 2, the study participants freely expressed their under­ they are exposed to the destination’s promotional stimuli.
standing of destination authenticity in relation to the experience of With that in mind, this study proposed an online experiment for
viewing images from Barcelona’s official online platforms and choosing students (N ¼ 99; female 46%; Mage ¼ 26) at one of the foremost uni­
that (or those) image(s) in which they perceived Barcelona as being the versities in a European country (Spain). The study considered three
most authentic. The dimensions obtained in phase 1 re-emerge in the conditions in which promotional stimuli about a destination were
participants’ narratives in phase 2. Among the quotes that indicate the randomly presented. The design of the conditions was based on the type
presence of the dimensions of destination brand authenticity, the of stimuli that a tourist can find most frequently on online destination
following may be cited in reference to temporal consistency: “I liked that platforms: the destination’s website (texts, images, and video) and the
both [the official website and Instagram] were highlighting simple destination’s social media (texts, images, video, and comments) (Ap­
pictures of the architecture/landmarks and local tradition”; “The photos pendix B). A condition including only the destination’s promotional
on the Barcelona’s Instagram appeared to be of historical sites.” marketing text was designated as the control. In an effort to avoid bias
Furthermore, in reference to the destination’s credibility, participants due to a high degree of participant familiarity with the destination, we
commented, “I think an official Facebook page makes it feel more decided to use promotional material from Puerto Rico, one of the des­
authentic. With Facebook you can have ratings or people can make tinations that Spanish tourists visit least often (UNWTO, 2017). The lack
comments to ensure the page is accurate and authentic, if it was fake it of participant familiarity with the destination was confirmed by a con­
could be taken down”; “If you’re looking for authenticity, the official trol question in response to which only five participants, who were
website best highlights everything available for visitors, and on most subsequently eliminated from the study, stated that they had previously
social media sites, the images are heavily photoshopped to be more visited the destination.
appealing.” Finally, regarding the dimension of destination originality After the stimuli were presented, destination brand authenticity was
through its official platforms, we obtained quotes such as: “YouTube measured in line with the three dimensions observed in study 1 (tem­
showed at least a little of what makes Barcelona unique”; “Instagram has poral consistency, credibility, and originality), with four items for each
a better visual layout in order to express the beauty and uniqueness of dimension. Finally, behavioral intentions were measured using an
Barcelona.” adaptation of Chen and Tsai’s (2007) measurement (six items). All the
From the results of phase 2, the official online platform on which items were evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 ¼ completely disagree
authenticity was most highly perceived in the tourist destination was to 7 ¼ completely agree). At the end of the survey, an instructional
Instagram (25 participants; 47%), followed by the official website (15 manipulation check was presented to assess the participants’ atten­
participants; 28%), YouTube (eight participants; 15%), and Facebook tiveness to the information/stimuli presented (Oppenheimer, Meyvis, &
(six participants; 11%). Finally, we determined the prevalence of each of Davidenko, 2009). In this case, the participants were asked to select two
the dimensions in the participants’ written notes. Specifically, specific options, which had been indicated at the statement of the
throughout phase 2, the most frequently named dimension of destina­ question and which referred to online travel information platforms (i.e.,
tion brand authenticity was credibility (22 participants; 40%), followed Travelocity and Booking.com), from a battery of six platforms. All the
by originality (17 participants; 31%) and temporal consistency (three participants included in this study responded correctly with the two
participants; 5%). In this case, 14 of the participants’ narratives did not platforms indicated in the question’s statement.
offer evidence of the destination authenticity dimensions (26.4%), and
three participants described more than one dimension in their narratives 4.2.1. Results of study 2
(5.65%). Therefore, when the participants identified destination brand In the first part of the study, an exploratory factor analysis was
authenticity as the product of the destination’s communication through conducted. The principal component factor analysis with varimax
official online platforms, the factor of credibility assumed a prevailing rotation confirmed that there were three factors (eigenvalues >1) by
role in the narratives at the expense of the dimensions of originality and which the theoretical dimensions of destination brand authenticity were
temporal consistency, which were observed with greater frequency in differentiated. However, we proceeded to eliminate three items with a
phase 1. These results show that the degree of destination authenticity, load value of less than 0.70. After those items had been eliminated (one
as such, in comparison to how the destination is marketed as authentic per dimension), 77% of the variance was explained, the Kaiser-Meyer-
(through orchestrated brand discourse on official online platforms), is Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.71, and the value of Bar­
perceived by tourists in different ways. From the standpoint of desti­ tlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant (X236 ¼467.20;
nation promotion, credibility would assume a more relevant role in p < 0.001). The internal validity of each dimension exceeded the mini­
shaping destination brand authenticity as a result of visiting official mum value of 0.70 established by Cronbach’s alpha (temporal

8
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

consistency ¼ 0.88; credibility ¼ 0.84; originality ¼ 0.82) (Hair, Ander­ obtained through one of the foremost American market research com­
son, Tatham, & Black, 1998). The first reduction of items retained a total panies, Qualtrics (N ¼ 508; from UK ¼ 52.55%; female, 58%; age range,
of nine items, of which three pertained to the dimension of temporal 18–66; average age, 52 years; participants with university studies, 38%;
consistency, three to credibility, and three to the originality of the monthly salary range with highest frequency, UK ¼ less than £2,500,
destination (Table 1). 71.61%; monthly salary range with highest frequency, US ¼ less than
In the confirmatory factor analysis phase, a maximum-likelihood $3,000, 47.73%).
estimation was conducted using AMOS 24. The fit values of the final Online experiment and post-experiment surveys were conducted
tested model (with three first-order dimensions of destination brand through the Qualtrics platform. The experimental design was based on
authenticity) gave satisfactory results without the need to make im­ the presentation of four online navigation scenarios associated with the
provements using modification indices or to eliminate items (X2 ¼29.61, online platforms of a destination proposed by the researchers, again
df ¼ 24, X2 /df ¼ 1.23, p ¼ 0.198; CFI ¼ 0.98, GFI ¼ 0.93, AGFI ¼ 0.88, utilizing the online platforms of the prior studies (the destination’s
SRMR ¼ 0.06, RMSEA ¼ 0.04) (Fig. 3). official website, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube accounts). The
Finally, for each experimental condition tested, the means ratings selected destination was Rome, one of the more frequently visited Eu­
comparison did not show significant differences among the destination ropean destinations both by British and North American tourists (Sta­
brand authenticity dimensions: temporal consistency (MWebsite ¼ 4.83 vs. tista, 2019). The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four
MSocial media ¼ 4.68 vs. MControl ¼ 4.40, p > 0.05), credibility (MWeb­ online navigation scenarios (Appendix C) . After navigation, the par­
site ¼ 5.25 vs. MSocial media ¼ 5.37 vs. MControl ¼ 5.53, p > 0.05), and origi­ ticipants answered a series of questions about the online destination
nality (MWebsite ¼ 5.11 vs. MSocial media ¼ 5.31 vs. MControl ¼ 5.46, brand experience, the destination brand’s authenticity, and their
p > 0.05). These results indicate that the evaluation of destination brand behavioral intentions toward Rome.
authenticity through its dimensions can be shaped by diverse types of The measurement scale for online destination brand experience is an
stimuli, with a better or worse authenticity rating not being subject to a adaptation of the items corresponding to Brakus et al.’s (2009) four
greater or lesser quantity of destination stimuli. In addition, no signifi­ dimensions of brand experience: sensory (three items), intellectual
cant differences were found in behavioral intentions toward the desti­ (three items), behavioral (three items), and affective (three items). The
nation among the experimental conditions (MWebsite ¼ 4.87 vs. MSocial destination brand authenticity scale was measured using the refined
media ¼ 5.19 vs. MControl ¼ 5.26, p > 0.05). scale from study 2 with three dimensions: temporal consistency (three
items), credibility (three items), and brand originality (three items).
Finally, the tourists’ behavioral intentions toward the destination were
4.3. Study 3A. Discriminant validity, antecedents, and consequences of measured using an adaptation of the measurement proposed by Chen
destination brand authenticity with US and UK tourists and Tsai (2007) (six items) (see supplementary data).
The study instructions directed participants to spend a minimum of
The objectives set out for study 3A are divided into two sections: 2 minutes navigating the assigned destination platform. Those partici­
first, to analyze the discriminant validity and reliability of the online pants who were reported to have a navigation time inferior to 2 minutes
destination brand authenticity scale resulting from the refinement of (via the timer included in the experimental design) were eliminated
studies 1 and 2 and, second, to evaluate the theoretical model under from the study. In addition to the navigation timer, the number of clicks
discussion in terms of the causal-predictive relationships among online the participants made during navigation was also detected. If no clicks
destination brand experience, destination brand authenticity, and were registered, that participant’s responses were correspondingly
tourists’ behavioral intentions after visiting the destination’s official eliminated as it was necessary to click at least once to access the pre­
online platforms. In study 3A, we use a sample of US and UK tourists sented platform.

Table 1 4.3.1. Data-analysis procedure

Exploratory factor analysis: Revealed the destination brand authenticity di­ The analysis of the data obtained in study 3A was divided into three
mensions. Spanish sample. stages. In the first stage, the destination brand authenticity scale was
Items Factor analysis uses Varimax rotation analyzed for validity and reliability. To that end, exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses were conducted with the overall ratings of
Temporal Credibility Originality
Consistency
destination brand authenticity. In this case, the total sample was
randomly divided into two groups, of which the resulting first group was
Puerto Rico stands out as a tourist 0.91 0.08 0.05
used for the exploratory factor analysis (N ¼ 254) while the second
destination because of its history
Puerto Rico’s history makes the city 0.94 0.00 0.04 group was added for the confirmatory factor analysis. In the second
attractive as a tourist destination stage, using the whole sample (N ¼ 508), we did a comparative analysis
Puerto Rico has a historical heritage 0.79 0.23 0.10 of the means of each of the variables evaluated in the study for each
that is always interesting to visit
platform analyzed. In the third stage, using the whole sample, we
I believe Puerto Rico meets the 0.00 0.77 0.13
expectations as a tourist
analyzed the proposed theoretical model of the relationships among the
destination online destination brand experience, destination brand authenticity, and
Puerto Rico is realistic in terms of 0.11 0.90 0.13 behavioral intentions.
the tourist experience that it
promises to tourists
4.3.2. Analysis of the validity and reliability of the destination brand
Puerto Rico is an honest destination 0.19 0.88 0.19
in terms of the tourist experiences authenticity scale
advertised In the exploratory factor analysis phase with the first half of the
Puerto Rico is an original tourist 0.07 0.00 0.88 sample (N ¼ 254), the three factors by which the theoretical dimensions
destination to visit of destination brand authenticity were differentiated were again
Puerto Rico can be defined as an 0.09 0.24 0.82
authentic tourist destination
observed (eigenvalues >1) (Table 2). In this case, 78% of the variance
Puerto Rico clearly distinguishes 0.04 0.18 0.83 was explained, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy
itself from other tourist was 0.91, and the value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically
destinations
significant (X236 ¼1401.86; p < 0.001). The internal validity of each
Notes: N ¼ 99. dimension exceeded the minimum value of 0.70 established by
Bold values indicate the factor on which each item predominantly loads.

9
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

Fig. 3. Confirmatory factor analysis study 2.

Cronbach’s alpha (temporal consistency ¼ 0.86; credibility ¼ 0.85; authenticity is proposed as a result of the fit yielded by the measurement
originality ¼ 0.84). model in relation to the other variables under study (online destination
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the total sample brand experience and behavioral intentions).
using a maximum-likelihood estimation in AMOS 24. The final model fit
values were satisfactory. The three theoretically expected factors of 4.3.3. Descriptive analysis
destination brand authenticity were obtained (X2 ¼31.09, df ¼ 24, Prior to the development of the proposed relationship model, we
X2 /df ¼ 1.29, p ¼ 0.15; CFI ¼ 0.99, GFI ¼ 0.98, AGFI ¼ 0.97, conducted a means analysis per variable. In line with the comparative
SRMR ¼ 0.01, RMSEA ¼ 0.02) (Fig. 4). To more optimally estimate the analysis of the means ratings by variable and user type (website, Insta­
model of destination brand authenticity, we compared unidimensional gram, Facebook, YouTube) (Fig. 5 and see supplementary data), sig­
models, multidimensional models, and a second-order multidimensional nificant differences were found in the following cases. First, for the
construct. The comparison of model adequacy was conducted with behavioral online destination brand experience and for the destination
AMOS 24 using the maximum-likelihood method (Table 3). brand authenticity variables of credibility and originality, Instagram
The comparative results of the tested destination brand authenticity users showed significantly higher means ratings than users of the official
models confirm the best fit in two cases: (a) for the multidimensional website (range of levels of significance: p ¼ 0.040–0.020). On the other
first-order formulation with the three intercorrelated emergent factors hand, the ratings of Rome’s YouTube users expressed significantly
and (b) for the formation of destination brand authenticity as a second- higher means for the sensory, intellectual, behavioral, and affective
order construct with three dimensions. The decision that will allow online destination brand experience than those of official website users
differentiation between one and another model of destination brand (range of levels of significance: p ¼ 0.040–0.001). Finally, YouTube

10
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

Table 2 throughout the rest of the analysis.

Exploratory factor analysis: Confirmed destination brand authenticity di­ The PLS analysis of the research model was carried out in two stages:
mensions. Study 3A. (a) The reliability and validity of the measurement model was assessed,
Items Factor analysis uses Varimax rotation and then (b) the structural model was assessed. The first stage of analysis
Temporal Credibility Originality
confirmed the constructs’ reliability and validity as the values exceeded
Consistency the established thresholds of 0.7 for Cronbach’s alpha and 0.5 for
average variance extracted (AVE) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) (Table 4).
Rome stands out as a tourist 0.77 0.21 0.32
destination because of its history Furthermore, as the SmartPLS program also does factor analyses using
Rome’s history makes the city 0.81 0.26 0.29 the PLS algorithm for the measurement model being tested, we
attractive as a tourist destination confirmed the suitability of the factors with the factor test (see supple­
Rome has a historical heritage that 0.76 0.32 0.28 mentary data), using the items’ load values in each theoretical construct,
is always interesting to visit
I believe Rome meets the 0.26 0.81 0.20
which in all cases exceeded the minimum value of 0.70. Discriminant
expectations as a tourist validity was also established for all the constructs according to the
destination heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio criterion (HTMT <0.90) (Henseler
Rome is realistic in terms of the 0.24 0.83 0.27 et al., 2015) and the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion (Table 4).
tourist experience that it promises
To ensure that the sample did not have a response bias, we conducted
to tourists
Rome is an honest destination in 0.23 0.80 0.28 a common-method variance test using the marker variable method
terms of the tourist experiences (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), which is not expected
advertised to be highly correlated with the model’s latent variables. The marker
Rome is an original tourist 0.38 0.23 0.74 variable corresponds to the participants’ evaluation regarding their
destination to visit
Rome can be defined as an authentic 0.40 0.25 0.73
degree of agreement (1–7) as to whether, at the time of the study, they
tourist destination had sufficient funds to be able to afford a trip to Europe (M ¼ 4.21;
Rome clearly distinguishes itself 0.21 0.33 0.79 SD ¼ 2.04). The correlations between the dimensions of the various
from other tourist destinations model constructs and the marker variable returned a very weak range of
Notes: N ¼ 254. correlation (0.15–0.31). It was established that there were no critical
Bold values indicate the factor on which each item predominantly loads. bias problems due to common-method variance in the study’s data. In
addition, a subjective manipulation check was presented to the partic­
users also showed a significantly higher means of behavioral online ipants (per their conditions) in which they had to evaluate the level of
destination brand experience than did Facebook users (p ¼ 0.044). effort required in the navigation of the assigned platform (1 ¼ minimal
effort; 7 ¼ considerable effort). The means scores per platforms obtained
4.3.4. Analysis of the causal-predictive relationship model of online in a t-test comparison demonstrated a significantly greater effort in
destination brand experience and online destination brand authenticity navigation for official website users in comparison with users of the rest
For the theoretical model evaluation, partial least squares structural of the destinations’ platforms (Mwebsite ¼ 3.02; MInstagram ¼ 2.51;
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used with SmartPLS 3. This method is MFacebook ¼ 2.40; MYouTube ¼ 2.13; the range of p-values was
recommended by Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2017) for the analysis 0.015–0.001). As the participants had declared at least one use per week
of exploratory causal models when there does not yet exist a consoli­ of the social media platforms, the manipulation check is considered
dated theoretical framework, as is the case for online destination brand valid because the participants exerted significantly more effort in
experience and destination brand authenticity. Furthermore, the navigating Rome’s official website than in navigating social media as a
PLS-SEM method allows for multigroup analysis (Henseler, Ringle, & consequence of the official website representing a different and unfa­
Sinkovics, 2009). To determine the minimum recommended sample size miliar online scenario compared to the pre-designed and generalized
in the PLS-SEM method by analysis group (users of the destination layout of the social media platforms.
website, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube), the cut-off value was set In the second stage of analysis, the standardized loading coefficients,
at 10 times the maximum number of structural paths directed at a statistical t-values, and their respective standard errors were calculated
construct in the model (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011). Accordingly, as by implementing a bootstrapping procedure with a re-sample size of
the maximum number of structural paths directed at each construct in 5000 (Fig. 6). To assess the explicative and predictive capacity of the
the model was four and the sample total was 508, the size of this study’s model across the whole sample, the R2 and Q2 values (Stone-Geisser’s
database was considered acceptable. Likewise, the subsample size for chi-square criterion) were calculated. According to the R2 parameter,
each destination platform (Nwebsite ¼ 137; NInstagram ¼ 119; NFace­ online destination brand experience and destination brand authenticity
book ¼ 130; NYouTube ¼ 122) used in the multigroup analysis exceeded explain 64% of the variance in behavioral intentions. Positive Q2 values
the required sample size for the PLS-SEM analysis. greater than 0.20 in the dependent variables (range of values obtained:
In the relationship model, following the procedure carried out in 0.31–0.70) demonstrate that the model also has predictive relevance.
Brakus et al.’s (2009) previous modeling of brand experience, online Furthermore, the ƒ2 effect size of each predictive construct included and
destination brand experience was established as a type I (reflective-re­ excluded from the model was calculated over the endogenous variables’
flective) second-order construct with four dimensions (sensory, intel­ R2 values (destination brand authenticity and behavioral intentions).
lectual, behavioral, and affective). Destination brand authenticity was The ƒ2 effects obtained from the model were: 0.119 (medium effect,
first proposed as a first-order construct with three dimensions (temporal online destination brand experience → behavioral intentions); 0.896
consistency, credibility, and originality). However, the PLS-SEM mea­ (large effect, online destination brand experience → destination brand
surement model fit within the set of variables showed a better stan­ authenticity); and 0.510 (large effect, destination brand authenticity →
dardized root mean square residual (SRMS) value (Henseler, Ringle, & behavioral intentions).
Sarstedt, 2015) with destination brand authenticity as a type I (reflec­ The results of the model analysis including the total sample (Fig. 6)
tive-reflective) second-order construct (relationship model fit with show that the online destination brand experience has a significant,
destination brand authenticity with three dimensions in first order, positive, and direct influence on behavioral intentions (β ¼ 0.282,
SRMS ¼ 0.087 vs. relationship model fit with destination brand p < 0.001) as well as on destination brand authenticity (β ¼ 0.688,
authenticity in second order, SRMS ¼ 0.064). The latter, second-order p < 0.001). We also note a significant, direct, and positive effect of
configuration for destination brand authenticity was therefore used destination brand authenticity on behavioral intentions (β ¼ 0.584,

11
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

Fig. 4. Confirmatory factor analysis study 3.

4.4. Study 3B. Moderating role of official destination platforms

Table 3
Confirmatory factor analysis model fit comparisons.
The estimated structural models for the four subsamples analyzed
Models Chi-square df Chi-Square Difference (users of Rome’s official website and its Instagram, Facebook, and
Null 4415.46 36 – YouTube accounts) showed, in each case, a high explanatory power over
One factor 698.04 27 3717.42; p < 0.001 behavioral intentions toward the destination (website: R2 ¼ 64%;
Three factors (not correlated) 956.40 27 258.36; p < 0.001
Facebook: R2 ¼ 68%; Instagram: R2 ¼ 56%; YouTube: R2 ¼ 71%). To
Three factors (correlated) 31.09 24 925.31; p < 0.001
Second order model (Three factors) 31.09 24 – analyze the moderating effect of the online destination platform that
was used on the variables evaluated in the model, a multigroup analysis
Note: Chi-square differences represent comparisons of subsequent models.
PLS-MGA (a non-parametric multigroup test) was conducted using the
percentile bootstrapping method (Henseler et al., 2009). In the
p < 0.001). Finally, through the specific indirect effects, we confirmed PLS-MGA, we compared the loading coefficients obtained from boot­
the complementary partial mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986) of desti­ strapping between each of the analyzed groups in each of the relation­
nation brand authenticity between online destination brand experience ships in the model (Fig. 7). Likewise, the validity of the differences in
and behavioral intentions (β ¼ 0.402, p < 0.001). p-values was reviewed (Table 5). Based on Henseler et al. (2009), per­
centiles lower than 0.05 or greater than 0.95 indicate significant dif­
ferences between the groups analyzed (5% error).
Before we conducted the analyses by PLS-MGA, a metric invariance

12
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

Fig. 5. Analysis of means.

Table 4
Discriminant Validity: Fornell and Larckert criterion (below the main diagonal) and the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) (above the diagonal).
Constructs AVE Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Sensory ODBE 0.915 0.953 0.956 0.776 0.748 0.761 0.517 0.529 0.543 0.536
2. Intellectual ODBE 0.887 0.936 0.820 0.942 0.779 0.832 0.577 0.589 0.577 0.678
3. Behavioral ODBE 0.753 0.925 0.795 0.836 0.933 0.824 0.527 0.605 0.553 0.607
4. Affective ODBE 0.875 0.928 0.806 0.890 0.888 0.935 0.611 0.634 0.613 0.682
5. Temporal Consistency 0.893 0.940 0.546 0.614 0.563 0.651 0.945 0.692 0.800 0.712
6. Credibility 0.855 0.915 0.566 0.636 0.656 0.686 0.746 0.925 0.721 0.708
7. Originality 0.843 0.907 0.584 0.626 0.602 0.666 0.867 0.791 0.918 0.702
8. Behavioral intentions 0.753 0.934 0.567 0.727 0.653 0.731 0.759 0.763 0.761 0.868

Notes: Main diagonal in bold represents the square root of the AVEs (average variance extracted).
ODBE: Online Destination Brand Experience.

test was done in PLS-SEM (measurement invariance of composite Instagram, the official website, or YouTube. Second, in terms of the path
models; MICOM) for each of the possible comparisons between sub­ between online destination brand experience and behavioral intentions,
samples following the three-step procedure recommended by Henseler, those who accessed the destination’s YouTube page showed greater
Ringle, and Sarstedt (2016): (a) configural invariance, (b) compositional significant differences than those who used the official website.
invariance, and (c) equal composite mean values and variances (see
supplementary data). Among the six comparisons between the groups 4.5. Results for hypotheses of the causal-predictive models developed in
(derived from the type of online platform visited), full invariance was studies 3A and 3B
achieved in the comparison between the website and Facebook, Insta­
gram and Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, and Facebook and You­ The results of all the analyzed models (total sample and subsamples)
Tube. In the other cases (website and Instagram; website and YouTube), indicate that online destination brand experience has a positive and
partial invariance was achieved. The result of the metric invariance test significant influence on the behavioral intentions of tourists toward the
indicated the suitability of proceeding with the PLS-MGA analyses. destination after they have visited the destination’s official platforms
The PLS-SEM analysis indicates the existence of significant differ­ (H1 supported). Likewise, it is confirmed that online destination brand
ences in the paths between the model’s variables, specifically involving experience is an antecedent to destination brand authenticity (H2 sup­
the users of the destination’s Facebook and YouTube accounts. First, the ported). Second, in all the proposed models, destination brand authen­
paths of those who used Rome’s Facebook page showed a significantly ticity shows a direct, positive, and significant influence on behavioral
weaker relationship between online destination brand experience and intentions toward the destination (H3 supported). Finally, all the models
destination brand authenticity in comparison to those who used applied indicate complete confirmation of the hypothesis related to the

13
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

Fig. 6. Causal-predictive model.

mediating role of destination brand authenticity between online desti­ we developed a psychometric scale for destination brand authenticity.
nation brand experience and behavioral intentions (H4 supported). The validity and reliability of the destination brand authenticity scale
was acceptable for Spanish, British, and North American tourists. In this
5. Conclusions regard, destination brand authenticity is the result of a reflective,
second-order construct with three dimensions (temporal consistency,
The discussions of authenticity that have centered academic debates credibility, and originality). Second, through a causal-predictive model,
on tourism have traditionally focused on explaining how and why the destination brand authenticity construct was evaluated as the
tourists transform their social and cultural realities in searching for consequence of tourists’ online experiences with the destination brand
objects and experiences that allow them to have better self-awareness, to when they visited four official online platforms pertaining to a proposed
experience new emotions and sensations, to remember past times, and to destination (Rome). Both constructs (online destination brand experi­
be able to project an aesthetic identity on the search for what is genuine, ence and destination brand authenticity) demonstrated a direct, posi­
different, and real (Cohen, 1979; MacCannell, 1973; Wang, 1999). tive, and significant influence on the users’ behavioral intentions toward
Those discussions theoretically subordinate the perception of authen­ the destination regarding their intentions to visit and recommend.
ticity to the experiences of individuals in physical environments and Likewise, in all the relationship models analyzed, we observed that
spaces where cultural practices and/or objects are produced, repro­ destination brand authenticity exercises complementary partial media­
duced, and consumed (see Chhabra et al., 2003; Kolar & Zabkar, 2010; tion (Baron & Kenny, 1986) between the online destination brand
Mody & Hanks, 2019). In line with that perspective, this study proposes experience and behavioral intentions. Finally, regarding the proposed
that a destination’s authenticity can also be analyzed as the result of an theoretical model, the moderating role of the type of platform used for
online experience with the destination brand that is derived from tourist collecting information about the destination in the pre-visit stage was
contact with the promotional content on official online platforms. confirmed through a multigroup analysis.
Throughout the four studies conducted, we observed that destination
brand experience at the time of searching for promotional material
5.1. Theoretical implications
about the destination on its official online platforms (websites or official
social media) produces in the users a sufficient sense of authenticity
Destination brand authenticity emerges as a result of the internal and
about the destination (studies 1, 2, and 3A) in addition to influencing
subjective responses of tourists to the destination’s temporal consis­
their behavioral intentions toward the same (studies 3A and 3B).
tency, credibility, and originality. Tourists (study 1) refer to the desti­
This paper’s contributions can be summarized in several points. First,
nation’s temporal consistency as the degree to which the destination

14
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

Fig. 7. Multigroup models.

Table 5
Results of the PLS-MGA.
Relationships Comparative with significant values First group coefficients Second group coefficients Difference |coefficients| p-value

ODBE → DBA F vs. W 0.577 0.719 0.142 0.969*

ODBE → DBA F vs. I 0.577 0.710 0.133 0.960*
ODBE → DBA F vs. Y 0.577 0.757 0.180 0.995*
ODBE → BI W vs. Y 0.183 0.393 0.210 0.040*

Notes: W¼ Website; I¼ Instagram; F¼Facebook; Y¼ YouTube.

ODBE: Online Destination Brand Experience; DBA: Destination Brand Authenticity; BI¼ Behavioral Intentions.
*Significant differences when values are p � 0.05 (greater in the first group), or p � 0.95 (greater in the second group) (Henseler et al., 2009).

maintains and effectively communicates its historical appeal and heri­ no obstacle. On the contrary, through technological mediation and the
tage as a differentiating promotional element. This evidence builds on creation of what Walter Benjamin called dream-worlds of consumption
previous perspectives found in the academic literature on marketing (1983)—in this case, online simulacra of the destination (its website or
regarding the capacity of a product or service to maintain a sense of official social media)—can offer sufficient meaning to experience
historical appeal to consumers (Morhart et al., 2015). Therefore, tourist something as authentic, albeit in response to a simulation of the physical
destinations are evaluated, as are products/services, on their historical world (Baudrillard, 1994).
markings and on their capacity to maintain, through time, a sense of Online destination brand experience on the destination’s official
appeal based on their historical value to tourists. Destination brand platforms is defined in this study as tourists’ sensory, intellectual,
credibility is defined as the degree to which the promise of entertain­ behavioral, and affective responses when in contact with the destination
ment and enjoyment associated with visiting the destination is consis­ brand’s stimuli. In this regard, this study confirms the appropriateness of
tent with the perception tourists have of what an in-situ visit would the brand experience scale developed in the academic literature on
actually be like. Finally, the originality of the destination refers to a marketing (Brakus et al., 2009) in its application to the phenomenon of
basic component of authenticity: the degree to which the destination, the destination brand. The relationship models developed (studies 3A
through brand communication, is genuine, distinctive, and unique. and 3B) validate the conceptualization of online destination brand
The model of causal-predictive relationships (study 3A and 3B) re­ experience as a reflective, second-order construct with four dimensions
veals that destination brand authenticity is a result of the brand expe­ (sensory, intellectual, behavioral, and affective).
rience that individuals have with the destination’s promotional stimuli. The multigroup analysis allows us to distinguish significant differ­
In this case, the promotional stimuli came from Rome’s official website ences in the model relationships between online destination brand
and Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube accounts. The evidence ob­ experience and destination brand authenticity as well as between online
tained confirms previous theoretical perspectives from which it is destination brand experience and users’ behavioral intentions. In the
argued that pre-designed environments (e.g., the destination’s virtual first case, the influence of online destination brand experience on
environments) are experienced as elements that enhance the perception Facebook users, even though it was positive and significant in the for­
of authenticity (Mura et al., 2017). Thus, the perception of destination mation of destination brand authenticity, was lower than that of users of
brand authenticity responds to an existentialist approach to the concept the other platforms. This evidence opens distinct lines of discussion
of authenticity in which not corporally experiencing the destination is about the lower relevance of a destination’s official Facebook online

15
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

brand experience as a driver of destination brand authenticity. First, experience is sufficiently relevant and impactful on a sensory, intellec­
Facebook, as a brand-promotional platform, has been involved in tual, behavioral, and affective level, the destination brand will be able to
continual problems in terms of violations of users’ privacy from 2015 to influence, in addition to tourists’ intentions to visit and recommend the
the current year (e.g., the case of Cambridge Analytica and the case of site, the perceptual shaping of the destination’s authenticity. The results
users’ conversations being recorded on Facebook Messenger). In the provide destination brand managers two measurement tools by which to
same vein, Facebook, compared to other platforms, has come to be more monitor, examine, and control the destination’s online brand experience
associated by users with the spread of fraudulent content, tolerance of and the brand authenticity perceived by tourists who come into contact
fake profiles (Li & Suh, 2015), and inappropriate use of users’ private with the destination’s online platforms. These measurements are easily
information (Ayaburi & Treku, 2020). As a result, users’ trust and applicable in that they require only 12 items for online destination brand
engagement with this platform have globally diminished (Kahn & experience and nine items for destination brand authenticity.
Ingram, 2018). Thus, it is not unreasonable to expect that online en­ Destination brand managers must keep in mind that users may pro­
counters with brands on Facebook can provoke a certain level of skep­ cess the online destination brand experience and the perception of brand
ticism in users’ perceptions of the stimuli and information displayed. authenticity differently depending on the type of platform. The official
Linked to the online destination brand experience’s influence on desti­ platforms that offer predominantly visual stimuli rather than textual
nation brand authenticity, this plausible user skepticism toward Face­ stimuli (e.g., Instagram and YouTube) were valued by the participants of
book as a platform may itself constrain the online destination brand this study as the most appealing platforms on the sensory, intellectual,
experience’s ability to affects users’ perceptions of destination brand behavioral, and affective levels. Therefore, a destination’s official
authenticity in comparison to the other platforms analyzed in this study Instagram and YouTube accounts offer the most holistic online experi­
(i.e., the official destination website, Instagram, and YouTube). ence of the destination brand as all its dimensions are highlighted. The
On the other hand, a prior qualitative study on the online destination experiential repercussions of these platforms translate into a higher
brand experience suggests that destinations’ official Facebook accounts rating of destination authenticity in the three proposed dimensions
are less valuable, at the experiential level, than other, younger social (temporal consistency, credibility, and originality). Therefore, for a
media platforms, such as Instagram (Jim�enez-Barreto et al., 2019b). In destination’s official Instagram and YouTube accounts, the destination
this regard, Facebook’s lack of experiential attraction for destination brand strategy must be based on an online destination brand experience
brand promotion may represent a signal of its maturity as a communi­ focused mainly on an impactful visual presentation of the destination’s
cation channel. Facebook has been defined as the first mainstream social virtues while, at the same time, incorporating a combination of official
media platform in brand promotion (Lamberton & Stephen, 2016) and, content and UGC about the destination. The presentation of both nar­
at the same time, as a platform that tends to overload its interface with ratives about the destination (i.e., official content and UGC) will com­
calls to action to users in terms of features, information, and commu­ plement the predominantly visual attraction of the online experience
nication (Lee, Son, & Kim, 2016). As a consequence, Facebook’s users and enhance the perceived authenticity that makes the destination
may be less impressed or overwhelmed by the features, information, and consistent, credible, and different from others to tourists from their very
communication offered in the consumer/brand relationships on this first impression (Jim� enez-Barreto et al., 2019b, 2019a; Lindgaard, Fer­
platform. This, in the end, will affect the ability of a Facebook online nandes, Dudek, & Brown, 2006). In this case, the quality of the stimuli
destination brand experience to drive users’ perceptions of destination presented on the destinations’ Instagram and YouTube profiles, such as
brand authenticity. its visual appeal, the ease of finding information about the destination,
Next, the destination’s YouTube users showed a greater influence of and a high level of permitted interactivity between the user and the
the effect of online destination brand experience on behavioral in­ content, will promote a better online experience with the destination
tentions than the users of the destination’s official website. In this re­ (Jim� enez-Barreto et al., 2019b; Zhang et al., 2018) and, at the same
gard, the experiential aspects of platforms such as YouTube, emphasized time, foster destination brand authenticity and intention to physically
in this study by high ratings in the sensory, affective, and behavioral visit and recommend the destination.
dimensions, show, on the whole, this platform’s greater capacity to in­ On the other hand, a destination’s website stands out for being
fluence users’ behavioral intentions toward the destination in compar­ valued especially for its combination of sensory and intellectual expe­
ison to the official website. This evidence reinforces the arguments of riences with the destination brand. The results of this research are in line
previous studies (e.g., Dinhopl & Gretzel, 2015; Huertas, 2018), which with the prior study of (Jim�enez–Barreto et al. (2019a)) that argued that
suggest that the use of a destination account on YouTube may be one of visual stimuli are important on the destination website (i.e., the pres­
the best ways to facilitate the creation of expectation in tourists in terms ence of video and image galleries), but the users in our study indicated
of what they can find when visiting in person. Hence, this research that the capacity of the content to generate curiosity through texts and
confirms that video-based multimedia platforms allow a better presen­ official descriptions of the destination’s characteristic tourist offerings
tation of how tourists can enjoy the destination (e.g., actual weather, determines its final effect on the users’ behavioral intentions. At the
people enjoying the main tourist attraction in real time, a video guided level of creating destination brand authenticity, the website stands out
tour through the destination, and other displays of factual information), for facilitating the communication of information and stimuli primarily
which is more engaging for reflection than, for example, image-based related to its historical-cultural aspects through sources that are
platforms (Dinhopl & Gretzel, 2015; Roma & Aloini, 2019; Smith, perceived as official and easily verifiable. This factor translates into the
Fischer, & Yongjian, 2012). greater importance of the dimension of temporal consistency over that
Finally, in contrast to the other platforms tested, it is observed of the of the credibility and originality of the destination brand, which,
destination’s website users that the indirect effect of the online desti­ although high, are less important for official website users.
nation brand experience on behavioral intentions through the destina­ Finally, the destination’s official Facebook account offers managers a
tion’s brand authenticity (0.719*0.660 ¼ 0.474) is significantly higher way to generate balanced online destination brand experiences. As with
than its direct effect (0.183, p < 0.05). This finding suggests that, for the users of the official website, Facebook users give importance to the ca­
official website, destination brand authenticity strengthens the online pacity of the content to stimulate sensory responses and awaken interest
destination brand experience’s capability to influence users’ behavioral and curiosity about the destination (i.e., the sensory and intellectual
intentions toward the destination. online destination brand experience). However, even though Facebook’s
online destination brand experience displayed a satisfactory capacity to
5.2. Management implications predict users’ perceptions of destination brand authenticity, its influ­
ence between said constructs is lower than that of other destination
The present study has found that if the online destination brand platforms. In this case, destination managers must consider that, as a

16
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

social media platform, Facebook has recently been identified by its users Authorship contribution
as being susceptible to the dissemination of fake content, as violating
users’ privacy (Ayaburi & Treku, 2020; Li & Suh, 2015), and as tending J. Jim�enez-Barreto contributed to the conceptual development, the
to overwhelm highly active users with feature overload, information methodological design, gathering the qualitative and quantitative data,
overload, and communication overload (Lee et al., 2016). This indicates analyzing the data, discussing the findings and implications, as well as
that destination managers need to strictly control two aspects of Face­ writing the manuscript. N. Rubio contributed to perform the conceptual
book accounts by: (a) ensuring that what users communicate about the development, the data analysis approach, interpreting the results, and
destination on the official Facebook profile is highly consistent with the improving the writing of the manuscript. S. Campo-Martínez contrib­
physical reality that tourists can find and experience at the destination; uted to the conceptual development of the paper as well as discussing
and (b) managing the destinations’ stimuli and content processing to the methodology approach, the literature review, and improving the
avoid overwhelming users with excessive calls to action, such as asking writing of the manuscript. All the co-authors contributed to the final
users to simultaneously engage with destination branding, comment on version of the paper and approved it to be published.
official content, indicate their liking of the content, and upload and link
their content about the destination. Acknowledgements
Conversely, a progressive disclosure approach in the destination’s
stimuli and calls to action to users on Facebook (i.e., an interaction This work was supported by Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry,
design pattern that sequences information and actions across several and Competitiveness: [Grant Number ECO2015-69103-R]. The first
screens; Nielsen Norman Group, 2006) can diminish users’ experiential author is grateful to professors Nicholas Lurie (UConn), and Robin
stress. For example, such an approach could first show mainly visual Coulter (Uconn) for their inspirational PhD sessions held during the fall
stimuli (e.g., image or video presentations), then introduce hyperlinks of 2018. In addition, authors are grateful to Sebastian Molinillo (Uni­
that allow access to more detailed information on places and the desti­ versity of Malaga) for its recommendations and suggestions in an early
nation’s attractions, and finally, after users have accessed the detailed stage of this research project. The first author is also thankful to Sara
information, invite them to leave feedback about their online experience Paker for the narrative review of this article.
with the destination or directly interact with the destination’s content
on Facebook (e.g., like or share a particular content). Appendix A. Supplementary data

5.3. Limitations and future research Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104022.
Despite the contributions of the study, several limitations must be
taken into consideration. First, while this paper is framed in a pre-visit References
situation, the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of online destina­
tion brand experience and destination brand authenticity should also be Agapito, D., Mendes, J., & Valle, P. (2013). Exploring the conceptualization of the
sensory dimension of tourist experience. Journal of Destination Marketing &
conducted in each of the other phases of the tourist experience (while Management, 2(2), 62–73.
visiting the destination and post-visit). Second, in an effort to generalize Ayaburi, E. M., & Treku, D. N. (2020). Effect of penitence on social media trust and
the results, future analyses should include different destinations with privacy concerns: The case of Facebook. International Journal of Information
Management, 50(February), 171–181.
distinct characteristics in their representative tourist offerings to Barcelona City Council. (2017). Perfil i h� abits dels turistes a la Destinaci�
o Barcelona 2017
determine whether there are differences in the proposed relational (Tourists’ profile that visit Barcelona) https://www.barcelonaturisme.com/uploads/
model according to the type of destination (e.g., sun-and-beach desti­ web/estadistiques/Informe_Perfil_DestinacioBarcelona_2017_OTB.pdf. (Accessed 12
May 2019).
nations vs. cultural destinations). Third, the destination brand authen­ Barnes, S. J., Mattison, J., & Soresen, F. (2014). Destination brand experience and visitor
ticity construct has been evaluated under a second-order structure. behaviour: Testing a scale in tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research, 48
However, its use as a multidimensional first-order construct should also (September), 121–139.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
be analyzed given that sufficient results were obtained to support the use social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical consideration.
of such a configuration. Fourth, in light of the differences in cultural Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
values (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism) that can emerge when Baudrillard, J. (1970). Consumer society, myths and structures. London: SAGE publications.
Originally published as La societe de consommation © Editions Denoel 1970.
visiting brand platforms (see Kim, Sohn, & Choi, 2011), future studies
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. Michigan: Michigan Press.
should determine whether cross-cultural differences emerge at the time Beckman, E., Kumar, A., & Kim, Y.-K. (2013). The impact of brand experience on
of experiencing a destination brand through its online platforms and downtown success. Journal of Travel Research, 52(5), 646–658.
whether the destination is perceived as more or less authentic as a result. Benjamin, W. (1983). Das Passagen-Werk (1928-1929, 1934-1940), Rolf Tiedemann (Vol.
2). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Fifth, concerning the differences obtained in the path between the online Beverland, M., & Luxton, S. (2005). The projection of authenticity: Managing integrated
destination brand experience and destination brand authenticity for marketing communications through strategic decoupling. Journal of Advertising, 34
Facebook’s users as compared to those of the other platforms analyzed, (4), 103–116.
Bleier, A., Harmeling, C. M., & Palmatier, R. W. (2019). Creating effective online
future study must empirically isolate the multiple factors that have been customer experiences. Journal of Marketing, 83(2), 98–119.
discussed, such as users’ skepticism about Facebook due to its recent Boley, B. B., Jordan, E. J., Kline, C., & Knollenberg, W. (2018). Social return and intent to
privacy violations, and must determine whether Facebook’s interface travel. Tourism Management, 64(February), 119–128.
Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What it is?
design is more prone to generating online experiential stress/overload How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52–68.
than those of other official destination platforms. Sixth, as various Bruhn, M., Schoenmüller, V., Sch€ afer, D., & Heinrich, D. (2012). Brand authenticity:
technological simulacra of destinations are currently available to tour­ Towards a deeper understanding of its conceptualization and measurement. In NA-
advances in consumer research (Vol. 40, pp. 567–576). Association for Consumer
ists, such as applications using virtual reality (VR) devices, further Research.
research could use VR devices in its experimental design to provide a Carù, A., & Cova, B. (2003). Revisiting consumption experience: A more humble but
virtual visit to destinations when analyzing the influence of online complete view of the concept. Marketing Theory, 3(2), 267–286.
Chen, H., Papazafeiropoulou, A., Chen, T.-K., Duan, Y., & Liu, H.-W. (2014). Exploring
destination brand experience and destination brand authenticity on
the commercial value of social media: Enhancing consumers’ brand experience
tourists’ behavioral intentions toward the destination. Finally, the through Facebook pages. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(5),
relationship model presented compares online brand experiences in an 576–598.
isolated way, platform by platform, but future studies should incorpo­ Chen, C.-F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect
behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28(4), 1115–1122.
rate evaluations of cases in which the user visits two or more official Chhabra, D. (2008). Positioning museums on an authenticity continuum. Annals of
platforms. Tourism Research, 35(2), 427–447.

17
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

Chhabra, D., Healy, R., & Sills, E. (2003). Staged authenticity and heritage tourism. Kahn, C., & Ingram, D. (2018). Americans less likely to trust Facebook than rivals on personal
Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 702–719. data. Retrieved from Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-faceboo
Choi, Y., Hickerson, B., & Kerstetter, D. (2018). Understanding the source of online travel k-poll/americans-less-likely-to-trust-facebook-than-rivals-on-personal-data-reuters-
information. Journal of Travel Research, 57(1), 116–128. ipsospoll-idUSKBN1H10K3.
Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(February), 64–73. authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38,
Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist types. Sociology, 13(2), 179–201. 283–357.
Cohen, E. (1988). Traditions in the qualitative sociology of tourism. Annals of Tourism Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for using social
Research, 15(1), 29–46. network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students.
Cole, S. (2007). Beyond authenticity and commodification. Annals of Tourism Research, Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 365–372.
34(4), 943–996. Kolar, T., & Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or
Comaroff, J. L., & Comaroff, J. (2011). Ethnicity, Inc. Buenos Aires: Katz. the foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tourism Management, 31(5), 652–664.
Costa, J. A., & Bambossy, G. J. (2001). Le Parc Disney: Creating an authentic American K€
oltringer, C., & Dickinger, A. (2015). Analyzing destination branding and image from
experience. In M. Gilly, & J. Meyers-Levy (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. online sources: A web content mining approach. Journal of Business Research, 68(9),
398–402). 1836–1843.
Crick, M. (1989). Representations of international tourism mint the social science: Sun, Krishna, A. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to
sex, sights, savings and servility. Annual Review of Anthropology, 18, 307–344. affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3),
Davis, R., Sheriff, K., & Owen, K. (2019). Conceptualising and measurement consumer 332–351.
authenticity online. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 47(March), 17–37. Kumar, V., & Kaushik, A. K. (2018). Destination brand experience and visitor behavior:
Dinhopl, A., & Gretzel, U. (2015). Changing practices/new technologies: Photos and The mediating role of destination brand identification. Journal of Travel & Tourism
videos on vacation. In L. Tussyadiah, & A. Inversini (Eds.), Information and Marketing, 35(5), 649–663.
communication technologies in tourism 2015 (pp. 777–788). Vienna: Springer. Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. (2016). A thematic exploration of digital, social media, and
Ellard, C. (2015). Places of the Heart: The Psychogeography of everyday life. New York: mobile marketing: Research evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an agenda for future
Bellevue Literary Press. inquiry. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 146–172.
Fornell, C. G., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with Lee, W., & Gretzel, U. (2012). Designing persuasive destination websites: A mental
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), imagery processing perspective. Tourism Management, 33(5), 1270–1280.
39–50. Lee, W., Gretzel, U., & Law, R. (2010). Quasi-trial experiences through sensory
Fritz, K., Schoenmueller, V., & Bruhn, M. (2017). Authenticity in branding – exploring information on destination web sites. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 310–322.
antecedents and consequences of brand authenticity. European Journal of Marketing, Lee, A., Son, S. M., & Kim, K. K. (2016). Information and communication technology
51(2), 324–348. overload and social networking services: A quantitative analysis of Facebook users.
Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J., II (2007). Authenticity: What consumers really want. Harvard Computers in Human Behavior, 55(February), 51–61.
Business School Press. Lindgaard, G., Fernandes, G., Dudek, C., & Brown, J. (2006). Attention web designers:
Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. (Monograph No. 2). Edinburgh: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression! Behaviour & Information
University of Edinburgh, Social Sciences Research Centre. Technology, 25(2), 115–126.
Goldstein, E. B. (2010). Sensations and perceptions (8 ed.). USA: Wadsworth. Li, S. C. H., Robinson, P., & Oriade, A. (2017). Destination marketing: The use of
Goulding, C. (2000). The commodification of the past, postmodern pastiche, and the technology since the millennium. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6
search for authentic experiences at contemporary heritage attractions. European (2), 95–102.
Journal of Marketing, 34(7), 835–853. Li, R., & Suh, A. (2015). Factors influencing information credibility on social media
Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality platforms: Evidence from Facebook pages. Procedia Computer Science, 72, 314–328.
and their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of Consumer MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist
Research, 31(2), 296–312. settings. American Sociological Review, 79, 589–603.
Guttentag, D. A. (2010). Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. New York: Schocken
Tourism Management, 31(5), 637–651. Books.
Hair, J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Mody, M., & Hanks, L. (2019). Consumption authenticity in the accommodations
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. industry: The keys to brand love and brand loyalty for hotels and Airbnb. Journal of
Hair, J., Hult, T., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares Travel Research, 1–17.
structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Molinillo, S., Li�ebana-Cabanillas, F., Anaya-S� anchez, R., & Buhalis, D. (2018). DMO
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. Journal online platforms: Image and intention to visit. Tourism Management, 65(April),
of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151. 116–130.
Halewood, C., & Hannam, K. (2001). Viking heritages tourism–Authenticity and Morgan, N. J., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2003). Destination branding and the role of
commodification. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3), 565–580. the stakeholders: The case of New Zealand. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3),
Hall, C. M. (2007). Response to Yeoman et al: The fakery of ’the authentic tourist’. 285–299.
Tourism Management, 28(4), 1139–1140. Morhart, F., Mal€ ar, L., Gu�evremont, G. F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand authenticity:
Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17 An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
(1), 13–26. 25(2), 200–218.
Hays, S., Page, S. J., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Social media as a destination marketing tool: Mura, P., Tavakoli, R., & Sharif, P. S. (2017). ‘Authentic but not too much’: Exploring
Its use by national tourism organisations. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(3), 211–239. perceptions of authenticity of virtual tourism. Information Technology & Tourism, 17
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing (2), 145–159.
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. Journal of Napoli, J., Dickinson-Delaporte, S., & Beverland, M. B. (2016). The brand authenticity
Academic Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. continuum: Strategic approaches for building value. Journal of Marketing
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Testing measurement invariance of Management, 32(13–14), 1201–1229.
composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), Nielsen Norman Group. (2006). Progressive disclosure defers advanced or rarely used
405–431. features to a secondary screen, making applications easier to learn and less error-prone.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path https://www.nngroup.com/articles/progressive-disclosure/. Acceded September
modelling in international marketing. In New challenges to international marketing 2019.
(pp. 277–319). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Nunnally, J. C., & Berstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York:
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. McGraw-Hill.
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. Olsen, K. H. (2002). Authenticity as a concept in tourism research: The social
Hudson, S., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2009). Branding a memorable destination experience. The organization of the experience authenticity. Tourist Studies, 2(2), 159–182.
case of ‘Brand Canada’. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(2), 217–228. Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation
Huertas, A. (2018). How live videos and stories in social media influence tourist opinions checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental
and behaviour. Information Technology & Tourism, 19(1–4), 1–28. Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872.
Hyun, M. Y., Lee, S., & Hu, C. (2009). Mobile-mediated virtual experience in tourism: Peterson, R. A. (2005). Search of authenticity. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5),
Concept, typology and applications. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 15(2), 149–164. 1083–1098.
Illouz, E. (2017). Toward a post-normative critique of emotional authenticity: Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
Conclusion. In Emotions as commodities. Capitalism, consumption and authenticity. biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
Illouz E. (pp. 197–213). New York: Routledge. remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Jacobsen, J. K. S., & Munar, A. M. (2012). Tourist information search and destination Rajaobelina, L. (2018). The impact of customer experience on relationship quality with
choice in a digital age. Tourism Management Perspectives, 1(January), 39–47. travel agencies in a multichannel environment. Journal of Travel Research, 57(2),
Jim�enez-Barreto, J., Rubio, N., & Campo-Martínez, S. (2019). The online destination 206–217.
brand experience: Development of a sensorial–cognitive–conative model. Ramkissoon, H., & Uysal, M. S. (2011). The effects of perceived authenticity, information
International Journal of Tourism Research, 21(2), 245–258. search behaviour, motivation and destination imagery on cultural behavioural
Jim�enez-Barreto, J., Sthapit, E., Rubio, N., & Campo, S. (2019). Exploring the dimensions intentions of tourists. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(6), 537–562.
of online destination brand experience: Spanish and North American tourists’ Reicheld, F. (1996). The loyalty effect: The hidden force behind growth, profits, and lasting
perspectives. Tourism Management Perspectives, 31(July), 348–360. value. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

18
J. Jim�enez-Barreto et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104022

Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. J. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of Jano Jim� enez-Barreto is a Doctoral Candidate in Marketing
Tourism Research, 33(1), 65–86. Research at the Department of Finance and Marketing,
Ritchie, B. R., & Ritchie, R. J. B. (1998). The branding of tourism destination: Past Autonomous University of Madrid (Spain). His principal
achievements and future trends in destination marketing–scope and limitations. St-Gall: research interests include consumption experiences, tourism
AIEST. marketing, destination branding, sociology of consumption,
Roma, P., & Aloini, D. (2019). How does brand-related user-content differ across social multimethod research, and scale development with a focus on
media? Evidence reloaded. Journal of Business Research, 96(March), 322–339. multichannel brand experience. He has published articles in
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of journals as Current Issues in Tourism, International Journal of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 Tourism Research, Tourism Management Perspectives, among
(1), 68–78. others. He was a visiting research scholar at the marketing
Silver, I. (1993). Marketing authenticity in third world countries. Annals of Tourism department of the School of Business University of Connecticut
Research, 20(2), 302–318. (United States).
Smith, S. (2013). Conceptualising and evaluating experiences with brands on Facebook.
International Journal of Market Research, 55(3), 357–374.
Smith, A., Fischer, E., & Yongjian, C. H. (2012). How does brand-related user-generated
content differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 26(2), 102–113. Natalia Rubio is an Associate Professor in the Marketing
Solis, B. (2010). Engage! the complete guide for brands and business to build, cultivate, and Research at the Department of Finance and Marketing,
measure success in the new web. New Jersey: Wiley & Sons, Inc. Autonomous University of Madrid (Spain). Her research in­
Statista. (2018). Annual Us tourists that visit Spain (in millions) Accessed June 2019 https terests include brand experiences, customer experiences, co-
://es.statista.com/estadisticas/475132/numero-de-turistas-estadounidenses-en-es creation through online platforms, multichannel manage­
pana/. ment, and retail marketing. She has published articles in
Statista. (2018). Most popular mobile social networking apps in the United States as of several well-known international journals such as European
October 2018, by monthly users. in millions Accessed April 2019 https://www.statist Journal of Marketing, Journal of Service Management,
a.com/statistics/248074/most-popular-us-social-networking-apps-ranked-by-au Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Journal of
dience/. Retailing and Consumer Services, International Journal of
Statista. (2019). Number of tourist arrivals in the Italian city of Rome in January 2017, by Tourism Research, among others.
country of origin Accessed June 2019 https://www.statista.com/statistics/721204/t
ourist-arrivals-in-rome-by-country-of-origin-italy/.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Tavakoli, R., & Mura, P. (2015). ‘Journeys in Second Life’ – Iranian Muslim women’s
behaviour in virtual tourist destinations. Tourism Management, 46(February), Sara Campo is an Associate Professor in the Marketing
398–407. Research at the Department of Finance and Marketing,
UNWTO. (2017). Spain: Country-specific: Outbound tourism 1995–2017. https://www.e-u Autonomous University of Madrid (Spain). She has published
nwto.org/doi/abs/10.5555/unwtotfb0724250119952017201901. (Accessed 15 books and articles in several well-known international journals
April 2019). such as Tourism Management, Journal of Travel Research,
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, Interna­
Research, 26(2), 349–370. tional Journal of Tourism Research, among others.
Watson, G. L., & Kopachevsky, J. P. (1994). Interpretations of tourism as commodity.
Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 643–660.
Zarantonello, L., & Schmitt, B. H. (2010). Using the brand experience scale to profile
consumers and predict consumer behavior. Journal of Brand Management, 17(7),
532–540.
Zhang, H., Gordon, S., Buhalis, D., & Ding, X. (2018). Experience value cocreation on
destination online platforms, experience value cocreation on destination online
platforms. Journal of Travel Research, 57(8), 1093–1107.

19