Keywords

1 Introduction

Today, the travel and tourism sector has had to deal with the negative effects of the global financial crisis, the Covid-19 pandemic, climate change and disaster risk. While the industry strives to develop resilience, destination competitiveness has taken on the meaning of achieving exemplary growth. Destination marketing and branding help destinations navigate the turbulent environment and attract visitors by gaining increased awareness and building a strong brand. Achieving increased awareness and building a strong brand identity are considered high priority goals for tourism destinations seeking to increase tourist demand. The necessity for destination marketing and branding, along with the scarcity of financial resources, appeared to pave the way for public–private collaborations in travel and tourism [1]. At the same time, the use of social media has expanded, facilitating the process of destination brand image co-creation and thus contributing to the differentiation of the tourist products offered.

Social media have enabled the democratization of the internet as users can upload and share content. In terms of destination marketing and branding, destination stakeholders, including visitors, transformed from passive viewers to active participants of the destination image and co-producers of value. At the same time, social media enabled destination authorities and marketing experts to observe the open dialogue that has been produced online. Bearing in mind both the importance of destination marketing and branding, and the available capabilities of the modern tools, this research attempts to compare projected and perceived destination image as well as prompted and unprompted perceptions of the important destination features.

2 Literature Review

Even though the first studies on destination image did not release until the early 1970s [2], today, the topic is widely acknowledged by academics and experts in destination management and marketing [3]. According to Crompton [4], destination image is perceived as the sum of a person’s beliefs, ideas, and impressions of a destination. Image is accepted to have an important effect on the selection of a tourism destination as many studies attempted to shed light on its influence on travelers’ preference and intention to visit [3, 5]. People with a positive destination image are more willing to return or recommend the place to others or even to adopt a positive attitude towards the products of the specific country [6]. Destination branding appeared later, in 1998, in the literature [7] and is perceived is a stage of building a positive destination image and it involves selecting the appropriate element mix that will differentiate the destination from its competitors [7,8,9].

Gartner [10] explained that the destination image consists of the cognitive, affective, and conative image. Cognitive image is about tourists’ perception of the attributes and characteristics of a destination, including tourist attractions, environment, services and infrastructure. The sum of these beliefs leads to an accepted picture of the destination attributes. While the cognitive image is important for a traveler to include a destination in his/her choice set, the affective image is used to evaluate alternatives. Affective image is related to tourists’ motives and includes their feelings for the destination based on personal attitudes and values. It is about the personal meaning attached to the specific attributes [7]. Lastly, a conative image expresses tourists’ intention to visit a place. In the same vein, Baloglou and McClreare [5] suggested a framework for destination image formation according to which destination image is the outcome of perceptual/cognitive (beliefs and knowledge about an object) and affective (feelings about the object) evaluation. The former is influenced by the amount and type of information sources in the absence of prior experience, tourists’ age, and educational level. Affective evaluation is influenced by tourists’ sociopsychological motivations, education, and age. Perceptual/cognitive evaluation seems to have a great impact on affective evaluation, and both contribute to the overall image formation.

Bramwell and Rawding [11] approached destination image from another perspective and differentiated it into projected and perceived image. Destination perceived image refers to the image that destination authorities strive to project through marketing communications. On the other hand, the perceived image has been formed in peoples’ mind through primary and secondary communications. Despite differences, perceived and projected images are interdependent.

Cai [7] links the image formation process of Gartner [10] and Keller’s [12] concept of brand associations with brand identity building. According to the model, the destination branding process starts with selecting a brand element (logo, slogan etc.) and follows with forming brand associations. These associations can reflect the attribute and affective and attitude components of an image. Attributes are the tangible and intangible features of the destination. Then follows the affective component, which is about the value and the benefits that derive from the destination attributes. The attitude component derives from and expresses the evaluation outcome and the intention of actions or behavioral change. The three components are not examined only through tourists’ perspective, but what destination authority aims to project through them also matters. Thus, perceived and projected images can be compared and assessed. In case of a gap between the two, the destination authority needs to make corrections in order to build the desired image that will align with the brand identity.

Later, Beerli and Martin [13] analyzed cognitive image into nine factors, which are natural resources, general infrastructure, tourist infrastructure, tourist leisure and recreation, culture history and art, political and economic factors, natural environment and social environment. On the other hand, the factors shaping affective image were perceived as a judgment of whether the destination is pleasant or unpleasant and exciting or boring. Pan and Li [14] that the most common phrases describing the affective image of a destination are “exciting”, “happy” and “busy” and the less common ones are “interesting”, “crowded”, “scary”, “funny”, “different” etc. The aforementioned concepts were applied by Michael et al. [15], who, through in-depth interviews, aimed to detect the image of Australia in order to provide implications to DMOs on how to attract a specific target market.

Thus, the image formation process, which is influenced by several factors, including promotional actions and word-of-mouth, became more complex with the expansion of the internet and social media. In the past, Gartner [10] detected eight image formation agents, which are Overt induced I (advertising), Overt induced II (information from agents), Covert Induced I (celebrity advertising), Covert induced II (stories and content that their intention is hidden), Autonomous (news, movies and stories), Unsolicited Organic (discussion with individuals who have been in the area or know the place), Solicited Organic (request of information from friends and relatives, word-of-mouth) and Organic (personal experience). Through Gartner’s analysis, the importance of the different stakeholder groups in image formation is clear. Moreover, exposure to both tourism-specific sources and non-tourism-specific sources of information can influence destination image [3]. Today, destination authorities, tourism and non-tourism stakeholders, locals and tourists are co-creators of the destination as they can share content and messages generated by themselves online [16]. Destination authorities must be aware of how their destination’s perceived image is portrayed on social media and compare it to the projected image. If a gap is found, then they have to perform the necessary steps to bring it back into compliance with the destination identity. With destination authorities having limited control over image formation only through the promotional activities they organize, this is a matter of great concern. Until now, research aiming to analyze destination images using rich user-generated content has been limited [16,17,18]. This research attempts to help the destination authority of Pafos to capture the destination image as it appears on social media and to compare it with the projected image.

3 Methodology

For the purpose of this research, all the Instagram posts, including the hashtags “visitPafos” and/or “visitpafos” were collected. The total number of posts found was 7861, and of these, 7241 were analyzed as repetitive store and brand commercial messages were excluded from the sample. Inductive content analysis was performed, and data were scanned to detect the different stakeholder groups that were involved in the discussion. Then, the hashtags surrounding “visitpaphos” and/or “visitpafos” were analyzed to identify the factors shaping the perceived image, both affective and cognitive, and the projected image and to assess the potential gap between the two.

In the second stage, following the outcomes of the qualitative research, a questionnaire was designed to check if the stated responses agreed with the observed outcomes. The research instrument included 14 items related to the cognitive image of the destination instead of the 28 used in the case of Qu et al. [9], as the questionnaire was limited to include the items identified through content analysis (e.g. Relaxing Atmosphere, Scenery, Friendly residence- Hospitality, Good Place for Children and Family, Good Weather, Shopping Facilities, Culture and history, General Infrastructure, Offer Personal Safety, Accommodation infrastructure, Good Nightlife, Outdoor activities, Sports). The adopted scale was five-Likert, as used in the case of Qu et al. [9]. The quantitative research was conducted to capture the perceived image of the members of the Facebook groups “I love Cyprus” and “I Love Pafos” and 108 responses were received (see Table 2).

4 Data Analysis

According to the collected hashtags, the destination features that appeared most frequently were those of nature (in 1.641 posts), life (in 1.428 posts), activities and sports (in 820 posts), history and mythology (in 287 posts) and manmade attractions (in 258 posts). At the same time feelings were detected in 1.153 posts while 522 were used to express the sense of the place. The hashtags that were used to describe the natural characteristics of the destination were #sea (36%), #summer (31%), #nature (14%), #beach (13%), #spring (6%), #Pafossunset (5%), #seacaves (4%) and #seaside (3%) (Only hashtags that account for more than 3% of the category are listed). Hashtags such as #cypruslife (52,4%), #sealife (4,8%), #islandlife (31,4%) and #beachlife (11,4%) constitute the category called “Life”. Then, the hashtags #photography (404 incidents), #walk (167 incidents), #trailrun (156 incidents), #cyclinglife (129 incidents), #triathlon (123 incidents), #mountainbike (97 incidents) and #triathlontraining (60 incidents) are some of the hashtags constituting the category of “Activities and Sports” (Only hashtags that appeared over 50 posts are listed.). In terms of “History and Mythology” the hashtags #archaelogy and #archeology, #petratouromiou, #aphrodite and #tompsofthekings were used and only 287 incidents were collected. At last, the manmade attractions mentioned in the posts were #oldtown, #lighthouse, #streetart, #graffiti and #Pafosharbour. Concerning the affective factors, the most commonly used hashtags were #lovecyprus that accounts for 73% of the feelings category and #cypruslove that accounts for 16,4% accordingly (Only hashtags that account for more than 10% of the category are listed.). Lastly, the sense of the place is expressed is expressed through the hashtags #luxurytravel, #beautifyldestinations, #luxurydestination, and #romantic.

Comparing the projected with the perceived image (see Table 1) it has been observed that destination authorities mention natural features of the destination in 51,3% of their posts and activities and sports in 15,7% accordingly. The stakeholders and visitors also used the hashtags of the same category more frequently and thus the observed incidents represent 29% and 36,5% of the total accordingly. For visitors, in addition to the two categories mentioned above, life (in 19% of posts) and feelings (in 8.8% of posts) are also important which is not the case for destination authorities.

Table 1 Hashtags by stakeholder group
Full size table
Table 2 Factors of the perceived image of Pafos
Full size table

The sample of the 108 questionnaire respondents consisted of 69 females (64%) and 38 males (36%). Concerning reliability analysis, Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.935. According to the received responses 51% (55 out of 108) perceive Pafos as an ideal place for children, while 59% (64 out of 108) as a safe place. At the same time, 52,7% (57 out of 108) are happy with the quality of the accommodation, while 41,6% (45 out of 108) were neutral. In terms of the general infrastructure (hospitals, public transport, schools etc.), 48 (44,4%) mentioned that they were happy, while 53 (49%) neutral. Only 32 out of the 108 stated that Pafos is a great place for shopping, while 61 were neutral. On the other hand, 76 (70%) found the atmosphere of the island relaxing, only 4 seemed to disagree and 28 neither agree nor disagree. 85 out of 108 enjoyed the natural resources and scenery of the island and only 28 were neutral. Concerning history and mythology, 73 stated that they were happy with the related offering while 30 were neutral and 5 disappointed. In the same vein, 67 agreed that Pafos is a place to experience culture and history. Over half of the respondents agreed (60 out of 108) that the residents of the island were friendly and hospitable, while 56 neither agreed nor disagreed. 82 agreed of the respondents stated that the place is ideal for outdoor activities but only 49 agreed that Pafos is a place to enjoy sports. 49 out of 108 agreed that the island offers good nightlife and 80 found the weather pleasant (Table 2).

5 Discussion and Conclusions

This research sought to capture the perceived and projected image of the destination in order to help destination authorities better understand the importance visitors place on different destination attributes and direct their future strategies accordingly to achieve the delivery of the intended identity. Thus, Instagram posts were collected to detect the unprompted perception of the destination image (both projected and perceived), while questionnaires were delivered to visitors, aiming to reveal the prompted perception of the features that are considered important and shape the destination image.

Comparing visitors prompted and unprompted perceptions, it seems that they pay attention to the natural scenery of the island as well as to the offered outdoor activities. At the same time, they seem to underestimate the offered public amenities, shopping facilities and locals’ presence and hospitality. A contraindicatory outcome was related to the perception of Pafos as a place that offers experiences of history and culture. While most of the questionnaire respondents answered positively, there were just a few posts using related hashtags. In addition, the relaxing atmosphere of the island was rated positively but again, the relevant hashtags in use were rare.

Then, when comparing the projected and perceived image of the destination, it was observed that both destination authorities and stakeholders use hashtags related to Pafos’ physical features, life and emotions. Stakeholders used hashtags related to life more often than destination authorities. Accommodation providers insisted on the use of hashtags that express the sense of the place, while travel agents did not use hashtags related to sports and activities. Mythology, history, and gastronomy did not appear with the frequency we would expect from visitors or the destination stakeholders. The small number of incidents related to these categories on the one hand and the importance that history and mythology have for the island according to the perception of the visitors on the other, lead us to the conclusion that, although the visitors are aware of the special feature of the destination, they may omit it from their posts or even their routes if the destination authority has not properly promoted and made it available.