A Comparative Study of the Use of “Iconic” versus “Generic” Advertising Images for Destination Marketing By Nacef Mouri and Stephen W. Litvin.

1. A Comparative Study of the Use of “Iconic”
versus “Generic” Advertising Images for
Destination Marketing
Stephen W. Litvin
College of Charleston
Nacef Mouri
George Mason University
Journal of Travel Research
Volume 48 Number 2
November 2009 152-161
© 2009 Sage Publications
10.1177/0047287509332332
http://jtr.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
This research reports the results of an empirical study that compared the effectiveness of two advertising approaches,
“generic” versus “iconic,” in affecting a destination image. While politics may dictate that a state (as studied herein) or
national tourism office may feel the need to spread advertising funds across a range of destinations, the experiment
conducted for this study suggests that a focus on well-known iconic sites may well represent the more effective approach.
Keywords: iconic advertising; generic advertising; classical conditioning; destination marketing; destination image
Open any travel magazine and you will find an array
152
of state and national tourism office (STO, NTO)
advertisements promoting visitation. All, some more
blessed than others, have attractive scenery and interest-ing
places to promote. From an advertising perspective,
their challenge is to capture those images most likely to
enhance a destination’s image, motivate a purchase deci-sion,
and induce visitation. As these organizations’ suc-cess
is most often measured by visitor arrival numbers
and/or tourism export contributions to the economy (e.g.,
Kotler, Haider, and Rein 1993; Middleton 2001; Sheehan,
Ritchie, and Hudson 2007), creating and presenting
advertising that maximizes the effectiveness of their lim-ited
marketing budget is critically important. Adding to
the challenge is the complexity that faces many NTOs
and STOs as they formulate marketing plans amid a
political environment that demands the satisfying of a
broad range of often-contradictory constituent desires.
The genesis for the current research was a series
of print advertisements created by South Carolina’s
Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism (SCPRT),
the state’s official government tourism office. These
advertisements, placed in national publications Travel +
Leisure, Southern Living, and Field & Stream, featured
beautiful scenes from lesser-known, one could argue
obscure, tourism destinations across the state—Murrell’s
Inlet, Daufuskie Island, James Island, and Caesars Head
State Park—versus South Carolina’s well-known
destinations of Hilton Head Island, Charleston–Kiawah,
and Myrtle Beach. Each advertisement employed the
identical tagline, “It’s time.” For example, the James
Island advertisement overlaid a photo of a couple
strolling a picturesque tidal marsh dock with the caption,
“Sometimes, all you need are peace and quiet and each
other. . . . It’s time.” The advertisements were attractive
and professional but collectively begged the question as
to whether featuring these inviting yet relatively unknown
locales versus the state’s major tourist draws represented
the most effective marketing strategy—the research question
addressed herein. And while the advertising campaign
that spurred this research was South Carolina specific,
this article is in no way intended as criticism of SCPRT’s
efforts. Their approach simply induced the questions
asked. Instead, it is the authors’ intention that the outcome
of this research effort provides guidance to destination
marketers, regardless of locale.
Destination Image
The importance of destination image is well established
in the tourism literature. Defined as the visual or mental
Authors’ Note: We would like to thank the College of Charleston’s
Office of Tourism Management for its initial funding of this study and
George Mason University’s School of Management’s “Research
Pool” Coordinators for their assistance with our data collection. In
addition, Steve Litvin thanks and acknowledges the Fulbright
Scholar’s Program for its support of his research.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010

2. Litvin, Mouri / “Iconic” versus “Generic” Advertising Images 153
impression of a place held by the general public (Milman
and Pizam 1995), destination image has been characterized
as one of the most important aspects of destination posi­tioning
(Echtner and Ritchie 1993). And while Dadgostar
and Isotalo (1992) warn that the direct relationship
between destination image and tourist patronage behavior
remains an inconclusive proposition, much of the litera-ture
strongly indicates that destination image affects
destination selection (Gartner 1996). Furthermore, as
one would expect, it has often been noted that destinations
with positive images are those most likely to be selected
by travel consumers (e.g., Alhemoud and Armstrong
1996; Woodside and Lysonski 1989).
A stream of literature explores how travelers form a
destination image. Gunn (1997; in an update of his 1972
and 1988 work) was among the first to break the image-formation
process into component parts. He suggested
that people held an organic image of a destination based
on their assimilation of information gleaned from
secondary sources, such as newspapers, periodicals, and
books. A second higher level of image is derived from a
destination’s conscious effort to develop, promote, and
advertise its product. Gartner (1996) modified Gunn’s
image formulation typology and expanded the process
into an eight-level continuum ranging from overt induced
I, the point at which awareness through advertising
commences, to organic, subsequent to visitation when “a
new destination is formed in the minds [sic] of the visitor”
(Gartner 1996, p. 469). Destination image, therefore, can
be seen as a fluid concept, with different segments
holding different images and with each individual’s
image likely affected by both personal experience and the
destination’s efforts to promote itself.
Appreciating the importance of promotion, Richardson
and Cohen (1993, p. 103) conducted a study on the use of
state advertising slogans in the marketing of U.S. states as
tourism destinations. These authors found the various
slogans used to be generally ineffective as the “states
themselves were geologically and culturally diverse
entities whose many and diverse appeals cannot be
captured in a single slogan.” For many states, this was
compounded by a mismatch between geographical and
political boundaries, further making the crafting of an
effective statewide slogan elusive. Examples of proble­matic
efforts discussed were Pennsylvania’s “America
Starts Here,” which worked well for Philadelphia but only
loosely connected to the balance of the state; Arizona’s
“Grand Canyon State” slogan, which served northern
Arizona well but lacked relevance elsewhere; “Yes!
Michigan!” and “Discover Idaho,” neither of which
Richardson and Cohen suggested conveyed anything
special about their state; and “Wisconsin. You’re among
friends,” a generic phrase these authors felt provided
tourists no particular reason to visit.
Um and Crompton (1990, pp. 432-33) had noted the
same problems subsequently discussed by Richardson
and Cohen (1993). They concluded that the crafting of
an overall image for a destination was a complex chal­lenge,
as they saw image as a “gestalt . . . a holistic
construct . . . derived from attitudes towards the
destination’s perceived tourism attributes.” These authors
added that destinations can work to create a gestalt of
their own choosing but noted the challenge of selling a
product that already exists and, per Kolb (2006), unlike
consumer goods, one that marketers have but limited
ability to alter.
It has also been noted that a destination’s overall image
is often intrinsically tied to one or several easily recognized
and dominant tourism features (e.g., Bowie and Buttle
2004; Judd and Fainstein 1999; Voase 1999). For example,
the image of a double-decker bus induces thoughts of
the city of London. Equally strong are the connections
between the Eiffel Tower and Paris, the pyramids and
Cairo, and San Francisco with its Golden Gate Bridge.
Similarly, for many, the Coliseum equals Rome, the
Hollywood sign depicts Los Angeles, and visions of
white buildings with soft curves poised over an azure sea
have become symbolic of the Greek Islands. Such images,
a part of the overall gestalt, are referred to in the tourism
literature as “iconic,” often so powerful that they become
juxtaposed and quasi synonymous with the destination
itself (Voase 1999). And while it is the fortunate destination
that has what Judd and Fainstein (1999) refer to as “place
luck,” possessing a truly special tourism draw such as
those noted above, most destinations can point to a place
or feature that one can readily identify as belonging to
and representing the destination.
This article, extending Richardson and Cohen’s (1993)
work, looks not at slogans but rather at the use of “generic”
versus “iconic” advertising to promote a positive destina­tion
image and the desire to visit. The key question is as
follows: should generic advertising be used to portray an
overall positive image and enhance people’s attitudes
toward a “parent” destination, or should iconic advertising
be used to capitalize on the existing strong image enjoyed
by the icons within the parent destination? The advertising
literature on ad persuasion suggests, in general, that
advertising should attempt to create positive attitudes by
linking positive cues to the promoted product (Kim, Allen,
and Kardes 1996). The influence of positive responses to
advertising on attitudes is often explained through the
basic principles of learning, in particular classical
conditioning. Research supports the general premise that
brand attitudes can be shaped through conditioning
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010

3. 154 Journal of Travel Research
procedures (Allen and Janiszewski 1989; Kim, Allen, and
Kardes 1996; Shimp, Stuart, and Engle 1991; Stuart,
Shimp, and Engle 1987). A review of the marketing literat-ure
clearly reveals the extent of the discipline’s acceptance
of the classical conditioning theory, which predicts that
positive responses elicited by an advertisement will
transfer to the advertised destination over repeated
exposures to the ad (Smith, Feinberg, and Burns 1998).
The question that arises at this juncture is which type of
advertising, generic or iconic, would be more effective in
stimulating the classical conditioning process and
generating positive attitudes toward the destination. The
literature suggests that generic advertising’s attempts to
link the destination to positive cues will most likely be
hindered by an effect called blocking (McSweeney and
Bierley 1984). Blocking is based on the idea that only a
certain amount of conditioning can be sustained by a given
stimulus. Blocking occurs when prior experience with one
stimulus prevents later conditioning to a second stimulus.
In other words, attempts at associating a destination with
generic cues will be “blocked” because the destination is
already associated with iconic cues. Therefore, iconic
advertising is more likely to achieve the intended objective
of eliciting a positive response as a function of the iconic
advertisement’s depiction of easily recognizable, well-known,
and attractive images that reinforce, enhance, or
simply recall consumers’ previously held perceptions
about the destination (Kim, Allen, and Kardes 1996). As
such, it would seem reasonable to expect that message
receivers exposed to unsolicited exposures would react
more favorably to iconic advertising than to generic
advertising. Hence our hypothesis, influenced by the
above discussion of the literature, is as follows: “generic
advertising,” for example, as utilized by the state of South
Carolina’s “It’s time” campaign, is not, from a marketing
perspective, the most effective use of an STO’s or NTO’s
limited advertising budget, with the term most effective
narrowly defined as it relates to destination image, a
construct measured by a three-item scale described in the
section that follows.
Research Method
Research was conducted utilizing a sample of students
from a Southern U.S. university who participated in an
approximately 10- to 15-minute experiment (N = 307).
Participation was rewarded by extra credit in their
introductory marketing course. Participants were randomly
assigned to one of six treatment groups based on the order
in which they visited the testing center. Members of each
treatment group were provided six-page colored
“magazines” developed by the authors. All “magazines,”
identical with the exception of a page 5 stimulus
advertisement discussed below, included two short travel-related
stories, some advertisements for non-travel-related
products, and a travel cartoon. The following reasons led
to the use of a “magazine” in the experiment. First was
to make exposure to the stimulus advertisement as
realistic as possible, as destination advertisements are
commonly published in travel and tourism magazines.
Second was the desire to prevent participants from
guessing the specific research intent as participants were
instructed to browse the “magazine” as they would a
regular magazine and thus had no reason to focus on any
specific content. When time expired, participants
exchanged their “magazine” for a four-page questionnaire,
after completion of which they were debriefed, thanked
for their participation, and dismissed.
Version 1 of the magazine contained a page 5 adver­tisement
for the Grand Canyon, with the tagline, “The
Grand Canyon, Arizona. The Experience is Priceless.”
Version 2 replaced the Grand Canyon photo with an
attractive lake and mountain scene fictitiously labeled
Lake Limo, Arizona, with the same “The Experience is
Priceless” tagline. Version 3 featured Mount Rushmore,
South Dakota, while version 4 utilized the same lake and
mountain scene as version 2, this time labeled Lake Limo,
South Dakota, both again with the “The Experience is
Priceless” tagline. Version 5 of the magazine, created for
the experiment’s two control groups, replaced the page
5 stimulus advertisement with an additional travel cartoon.
While the two control groups read the same “magazine,”
they completed different survey forms, one with questions
related to Arizona, the other with questions related to
South Dakota.
While the use of real “iconic” versus fictitious “generic”
destinations was an issue of consideration, it was
determined that such an approach was best as it provided
both test states with identical “generic” alternatives and
thus eliminated the potential for these not being of equal
attractiveness. Furthermore, while Lake Limo was ficti­tious,
it was arguably no more obscure than the generally
unknown destinations portrayed in many generic adver­tisements,
to include those utilized by SCPRT that spurred
this research.
The selection of Arizona and South Dakota as test
states was based on the following criteria:
1. Both are states that relatively few participants
would have previously visited. This was important as
it has often been reported that the influence
of prior visitation results in altered attitudes (e.g.,
McKercher and Wong 2004). Those respondents
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010

4. Litvin, Mouri / “Iconic” versus “Generic” Advertising Images 155
who had visited the state advertised in their “maga-zine”
were eliminated from the sample.
2. Both Arizona and South Dakota are states with
“iconic” tourist attractions that dominate their state’s
image. (A total of 51 students not otherwise involved
in this research were asked to identify, unaided, the
photos of Mt. Rushmore and the Grand Canyon
used in the study. The 51 participants provided 101
of 102 correct answers, confirming that the “iconic”
destinations from the two tested states were in fact
familiar to the participants.)
3. The two states were relatively disparate from an
overall tourism attractiveness perspective. A
Fielding travel guide, Vacation Places Rated (Plog
1995), “rated” the 50 U.S. states as vacation desti-nations.
The guidebook awarded four stars to
Arizona and two stars to South Dakota. An addi-tional
test of 60 other students was conducted to
validate that the two selected states were, in the
minds of the students, at opposite ends of the tour-ism
attractiveness spectrum. When asked to rank
order the attractiveness of a selection of nine
Mountain West and Southwest states, Arizona
ranked first and South Dakota last. Having two
states included in the experiment, one with rela-tively
strong appeal, the other generally lacking
such appeal, enhanced robustness of the study.
The key dependent variable measured by the survey
instrument was destination image of the respondent’s test
state (Arizona or South Dakota), an issue of significance
to destination marketers for, as noted previously, a favor-able
image is an important precursor to destination selec-tion
(e.g., Alhemoud and Armstrong 1996; Woodside and
Lysonski 1989). The construct was measured using a
parsimonious scale that combined three common market-ing
measures of consumer attitude and behavioral intent—
purchase interest, purchase proclivity, and willingness to
recommend to others. (Hospitality and tourism authors
who have utilized variations of these measures include
Castro, Armaio, and Ruiz [2007], Chen and Tsai [2007],
Litvin and Goh [2002], Milman and Pizam [1995], and
Woodside and Sherrell [1977], among numerous others.)
The questions employed were as follows:
Based on the ad about the state of Arizona [or
South Dakota] that you saw in the booklet . . .
1. On a scale of 1 = not interested at all to 7 =
extremely interested, how interested would you be
in visiting Arizona [or South Dakota] as a tourist
destination in the next 5 years?
2. On a scale of 1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely,
how likely would you be to visit the state of Arizona
[or South Dakota] as a tourist destination in the
next 5 years?
3. On a scale of 1 = definitely not recommend and 7 =
definitely recommend, how likely are you to recom-mend
the state of Arizona [or South Dakota] as a
tourist destination to family and friends?
The higher the combined score for the above three ques-tions,
the more favorable the destination image. A strong
Cronbach’s alpha of .904 indicated that the three-question
set measured the same construct. Principal axis factor-ing
found the results to have been unidimensional
(Eigenvalue = 2.522). (These statistical tests were sug-gested
by Churchill [1979] to ensure scale validity.)
Demographic and travel-related questions were also
asked. As noted above, those participants who had
visited their tested destination within the previous five
years were eliminated from the sample (n = 14). Also
eliminated were those who indicated that they had not
traveled for vacation purposes within a five-year time
period (n = 10). An additional question measured
advertisement awareness. Those with no recollection of
the Arizona or South Dakota stimulus advertisement in
their “magazine” were also eliminated from the sample
(n = 42). This resulted in a total of 241 usable
questionnaires, composed of 45 to 50 respondents for
each of the four test groups and 25 and 29 participants in
the two control groups. Females composed 58% of the
sample. Participants were predominantly single (76%)
with a mean age of 24 years (SD = 7). Third-year
students (juniors) were dominant, representing 67% of
the sample, 24% were final-year (senior) students, with
the remaining respondents in their second year of study
(sophomores). Statistical tests indicated no significant
differences between the six treatment groups as they
related to these descriptive variables. While the use of
student samples leaves research open to greater scrutiny,
their use was deemed adequate for the current study as
the basic intent was to obtain information on the
participants’ reaction to various advertising approaches
rather than to provide point and interval estimates of
population parameters (Calder, Phillips, and Tybout
1981). This issue is further discussed in the Limitations
and Future Research section.
Research Findings
Survey responses from each of the six groups were
analyzed based on the three-item destination image
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010

5. 156 Journal of Travel Research
Table 1
Destination Image, Composite Scores
Group Advertisement Exposure M SD t-Test Results p
1. (n = 49) Arizona—Lake Limo 3.3 1.6
2. (n = 46) Arizona—Grand Canyon 4.0 1.7 1 vs. 2, t = –2.067 .042a
3. (n = 47) South Dakota—Lake Limo 2.4 1.4
4. (n = 45) South Dakota—Mt. Rushmore 3.2 1.4 3 vs. 4, t = –2.509 .014a
5. (n = 25) Arizona—Control groupb 2.5 1.5 5 vs. 1, t = 2.113 .038a
6. (n = 29) South Dakota—Control groupb 2.3 1.5 6 vs. 3, t = –0.378 .707
Note: Based on three-item destination image scale discussed in the research method section of the article. Mean reported is mean of the three
responses, with a potential range from 1 to 7, with the higher the score the more favorable the image of the destination.
a. t-test equality of means difference (two-tailed) between groups is significant at p = .100.
b. Control groups were provided “magazines” with no state advertisements.
scale. The analysis confirmed expectations. Participants
exposed to advertisements featuring their test state’s
iconic tourist attraction (Grand Canyon or Mount
Rushmore) reported significantly more favorable images
toward their test state (Arizona or South Dakota) than
did respondents exposed to the generic advertisement.
Though hypothesized, this was an interesting finding.
The participants were university students who were, as
noted above, aware of the Grand Canyon and Mt.
Rushmore. Their reading a “magazine” and seeing an
advertisement that featured these destinations exposed
them to nothing new or unexpected.
Yet these advertisements, intended simply to rein­force
the participant’s “organic” (Gunn 1997) knowledge,
significantly affected their destination image. The findings,
as noted in Table 1, are as follows: participants in the
Grand Canyon group (group 2) had an overall destination
image score for the state of Arizona of 4.0 (SD = 1.7;
potential range of low of 1 to high of 7) versus 3.3 (SD =
1.6; t = –2.067, p = .042) for participants in the Lake
Limo, Arizona, group (group 1). Similarly, for the “less
attractive” tourism state of South Dakota, participants
whose advertisement featured Mount Rushmore (group 4)
rated the state 3.2 (SD = 1.4) versus 2.4 (SD = 1.4; t =
–2.509, p = .014) for those whose “magazine” included
the generic advertisement (group 3). Furthermore, it is
noteworthy that the control groups (groups 5 and 6), not
exposed to either destination's promotional material, had
destination image scores for Arizona of 2.5 (SD = 1.5)
and South Dakota of 2.3 (SD = 1.5). For Arizona, the
differences between the control group and both the
“generic” and “iconic” treatment groups were significant
(t = 2.113, p = .038; t = 3.670, p = .000). For South
Dakota, the difference between the control group and the
“iconic” advertisement treatment group was significant
5 vs. 2, t = 3.670 .000a
6 vs. 4, t = –2.558 .013a
(t = –2.558, p = .013), while the “generic” advertisement
had no significant effect on participants’ pretest destination
image (t = –0.378, p = .707). The control group results are
important from a face validity perspective as they confirm
that the destination advertisements utilized in the study
were neutral to positive, and certainly not negative, in the
messages they sent.
The second step of analysis entailed a more detailed
look at the dependent variables (please see Table 2) with
the two exposure groups for each destination compared
based on the three component measures, that is, interest
to visit, likelihood to visit, and likelihood to recommend.
Five of the six comparisons resulted in statistically
significant differences (the exception being “likelihood
to visit” for participants exposed to the South Dakota
“generic” advertisement versus the Mt. Rushmore
advertisement). For each of these five comparisons,
respondents exposed to the “iconic” advertisement gave
their tested state a significantly higher rating than did
participants exposed to the “generic” advertisement.
Discussion
To be effective, destination advertising should seize
attention, awaken interest, and arouse a desire to purchase
(Echtner and Ritchie 1993). These objectives can be
achieved if destination advertising creates a favorable
image that ultimately translates into visitation (e.g.,
Alhemoud and Armstrong 1996; Woodside and Lysonski
1989). Classical conditioning theory and the associated
blocking phenomenon suggest that iconic advertising
would be more effective at achieving these objectives
than generic advertising. The findings of this study
confirm the theory’s prediction and strongly suggest that
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010

6. Litvin, Mouri / “Iconic” versus “Generic” Advertising Images 157
Table 2
Test Scores by Variable
Lake Limo, Grand Canyon,
Arizona (n = 49) Arizona (n = 46)
Ma SD Ma SD t-Test Results p
Interest to visit 3.7 1.8 4.4 1.8 –2.017 .047b
Likelihood to visit 3.0 1.7 3.7 2.0 –1.777 .079b
Would recommend 3.1 1.6 3.7 1.7 –2.203 .046b
Lake Limo, Mt. Rushmore,
South Dakota (n = 47) South Dakota (n = 45)
Interest to visit 2.5 1.7 3.7 1.6 –3.334 .001b
Likelihood to visit 2.5 1.8 2.8 1.7 –0.732 .466
Would recommend 2.3 1.5 3.1 1.4 –2.794 .006b
a. Responses ranged from 1 to 7, with the higher the score the more favorable the response.
b. t-test equality of means difference (two-tailed) between groups is significant at p = .100.
STOs or NTOs interested in enhancing their image and
thus promoting tourist visitation numbers are best served,
from a strict marketing perspective, by promoting their
destination’s well-known and dominant “iconic” tourism
assets. And while there is no arguing that some places
are simply more attractive tourism destinations than are
others, having what Gunn (1997, p. 51) referred to as
“magnetism,” this research suggests that each locale
should identify, develop, promote, and market its
“magnetic” attractions. Thus, as potential tourists are as
likely to know that Boston and Cape Cod are in
Massachusetts as they are to know that the Grand Canyon
is in Arizona, the suggestion is that the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts should feature these destinations in its
promotional materials, for doing so likely will attract
more visitors than will promoting Massachusetts
generically via featuring the state’s less familiar and/or
less prominent attractions.
Returning to the “It’s time” campaign that spurred this
research, South Carolina’s decision to promote its lesser-known
corners versus its well-known coastal attractions
seems not to have been the state’s most effective
marketing strategy option. It must be acknowledged,
however, that one cannot simply ignore the realities of
politics, as the decision to promote attractions statewide
was likely based on a perceived need for a geographically
equitable distribution of resources. Funding for SCPRT,
as is the case for most STOs, is principally derived from
accommodation tax revenues, and while South Carolina’s
dominant tourist destinations are concentrated along the
coast, hotel guests are dispersed statewide, and a sizeable
percentage of tourism tax dollars originate from such
nonvacation travel as when a parent visits his or her child
at Clemson University, a vendor makes a sales call at the
BMW assembly plant in Greer, or a lobbyist spends the
night in the capital city of Columbia. As all of these
visits contribute to the accommodation tax revenue pool,
is it not reasonable that these communities would lobby
for a pro rata reinvestment of the tax funds they
generate?
The distribution of tax dollars is a well-studied issue,
generally discussed in terms of tax spillover costs and
tax spillover benefits (Boehne 1969), and it is easy to
appreciate both sides of the argument. SCPRT, from a
marketing perspective, should be pursuing the most
effective use of its limited tourism promotional dollars,
however the measure may be defined, while contributing
communities expect that their share of tax dollars sent to
Columbia will find their way back to the source. South
Carolina is certainly not alone in facing such a conflict,
which ought to make this research of interest to readers
regardless of locale. Turn the pages of any travel
magazine and it is evident that many states take a “spread
the wealth,” “generic” approach to their advertising.
Several examples from 2006 National Geographic
Traveler include the following: Missouri advertising that
features attractive but “could be anywhere” nature and
foliage scenes versus the St. Louis Gateway Arch or
Branson’s country and western music appeal; Maine’s
collage of a frolicking whale, a young couple paddling a
canoe on an unidentified lake, and fields of wild
blueberries—with no specific mention of Bar Harbor or
Arcadia National Park, the state’s dominant attractions;
and Colorado advertisements, similar in style and
approach to the “It’s time” campaign, that feature
unidentified mountain and vineyard scenes rather than
recognizable images of Pikes Peak or Rocky Mountain
National Park. These states have made the same
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010

7. 158 Journal of Travel Research
destination marketing decision as has South Carolina—to
promote a holistic state image rather than the promotion
of their well-known and identifiable “iconic” attractions.
These allocation of promotional funds away from the
“core” to the less well-known “peripherality” (Brown
and Hall’s [2000] terms) make political sense but, from
an advertising effectiveness perspective, may not be the
most prudent of approaches.
It is interesting to note that South Carolina Governor
Mark Sanford (cited in Stock 2006, p. 12B), defending
his budgetary allocation to SCPRT, stated, “Whether it’s
tourism or manufacturing, we’ve always believed that
when it comes to economic development, we have to
invest our limited dollars in places where they’ll have the
greatest impact.” This comment was made specifically in
defense of significant new funds earmarked for tourism
advertising, which he felt to be a good investment for the
state. These findings suggest, however, that the “It’s
time” campaign created by SCPRT with these additional
funds, with their emphasis on the promotion of secondary
destinations, likely fell short of its potential to deliver to
the governor the impact he was hoping to achieve.
Furthermore, while a state’s secondary destination
areas could argue that they deserve to be highlighted, the
unintended consequences of doing so may cause these
locales more harm than good. Again using the “It’s time”
campaign as an example, while inevitably some potential
tourists saw an SCPRT advertisement featuring a secondary
destination and decided on a South Carolina vacation
specifically to visit that destination, this research suggests
that such success was likely accomplished at the expense
of attracting a still larger number of potential visitors to
the state. Most tourists seek multiple destinations during
their travels (Oppermann 1992), and it is a reasonable
assumption that a percentage of these incremental visitors
would have found their way to the state’s secondary or
tertiary noncoastal attractions during the course of their
visit . . . but only if motivated to vacation in South Carolina
in the first place. The same argument would hold for a
visitor to South Dakota, attracted by an advertisement that
featured Mount Rushmore, who then opts to extend his or
her vacation to visit the cross-state attraction the Badlands.
This visitor is likely to include a midstate stop in Mitchell
to view its quirky Corn Palace. Would not Mitchell’s
tourism interests thus be better served by advertisements
featuring Mount Rushmore and/or the Badlands rather
than Mitchell itself, a fun place to visit but not a destination
with sufficient “magnetism” to generate a South Dakota
vacation on its own?
The findings of this research echo Litvin et al.’s (2006)
empirical study of accommodation tax dollar promo­tional
expenditures by small and rural communities. These
authors noted that such locales were ill advised to invest
in mass media destination advertising as they lacked the
resources necessary to create the awareness level required
for an effective campaign. Instead, it was suggested that
a more successful strategy was the use of tourism
promotional tax dollars to create festivals and events that
provide visitors a special reason to visit. Consistent with
this, it would seem more beneficial, again using South
Carolina as example, that the state’s secondary destinations
ask that a portion of the state’s tourism marketing funds
be directed toward the support of their local events rather
than their being featured in an SCPRT advertisement. If
these events were promoted via inexpensive means such
as inclusion on SCPRT tourist Web calendars and their
brochures displayed at the state’s welcome centers, then
visitors coming to the state’s coastal destinations would
have reason to extend their stay to incorporate visits to
such events as Georgetown’s Wooden Boat Show,
Columbia’s South Carolina State Fair, or Lauren’s
Squealin’ on the Square Festival (SC Highways 2008).
Such an approach seems far more beneficial to the locale
than being featured in an advertisement likely to fail to
bring visitors to the state in the first place.
Limitations and Future Research
There are limitations that readers should consider when
evaluating this research. First, the experimental design
focused solely on first-time visitors. The dynamics of
repeat visitorship are notably different from those of first
timers. For example, in a study of tourists to Charleston,
South Carolina, a historic destination, Litvin (2007) found
that first-time visitors most often visited the city’s historic
and heritage assets, whereas repeat visitors were more
likely to visit the beach or to play golf. These findings
were consistent with those of McKercher and Wong
(2004), who noted that first-time visitors want to discover
a destination while repeat visitors are likely to engage in
a limited set of actions that relate to shopping, dining, and
spending time with friends. Understanding differences
between first-time versus repeat visitors when promoting
a destination is thus critically important. Appreciating the
inappropriateness of combining these two segments into a
single sample and lacking the resources to generate a
sample large enough to study both, the decision was made
to focus on those without personal travel experience to the
test destination for this study. Extension of the current
research to explore repeat visitors’ advertising responses
would be a worthwhile future research endeavor.
Furthermore, the fact that generic advertising’s impact on
destination image for South Dakota (a destination with a
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010

8. Litvin, Mouri / “Iconic” versus “Generic” Advertising Images 159
relatively weak image) was not statistically different from
the control group’s destination image suggests interplay
between type of advertising and existing destination
image. It might be that iconic advertising plays a more
impactful role when the destination enjoys an already
existing favorable image. The present research could be
extended by investigating the differential impact of iconic
and generic advertising for “favorable” versus “unfavor­able”
destinations.
The use of a student sample potentially limits generali­zability
of the findings. The use of students for this
research, however, was necessitated by the substantial
sample size required to operationalize the experimental
design utilized, which otherwise would not have been
economically feasible. That said, while students do travel,
their travel planning and travel patterns are not necessarily
reflective of the broader population. However, as the
research was not attempting to determine actual travel
likelihood but rather participants’ reaction to advertising
exposure, there is no reason to believe that students would
have reacted in any significantly different manner than
would have a nonstudent sample (please see Calder,
Phillips, and Tybout 1981). Further testing with samples
reflecting various populations would however enhance
confidence regarding the generalizability of the findings.
We also acknowledge that the means of our dependent
variables are relatively low, especially for participants
exposed to South Dakota stimuli. However, as the purpose
of this study was to compare different types of stimuli
(“iconic” vs. “generic”), rather than assess stimuli effec­tiveness
to affect destination image, we were less interested
in the levels of means than the differences between means.
Of course, before a destination places emphasis on the
promotion of its “iconic” assets, research should be con­ducted
to explore the likely effectiveness with the defined
target market, as the tourism dynamics of each destination
and every segment are uniquely different. For example,
the students within this sample would likely be among the
strata found at a lower rung of Pearce’s (1988) Travel
Career Ladder. While some destinations target such
tourists, others seek more sophisticated travelers. Such a
difference points to the importance of understanding the
dynamics of one’s destination before applying any new
marketing strategy.
One final comment. It is not uncommon for states to
run advertisement sequences featuring multiple destina­tions
rather than utilizing the more focused approach
tested herein. Analysis of the use of a multiple benefit–
multiple cue approach versus a single benefit–single cue
promotional strategy, an issue related to but beyond the
scope of the current research, would represent a worth­while
future endeavor.
Conclusion
The fact that the promotion of “iconic” versus
“generic” assets results in a more favorable image of the
destination as a vacation choice, this study’s key finding,
is important to any marketer with the responsibility for
promoting a destination with multiple attractions. Such a
finding supports the advice of Murphy and Murphy
(2004, p. 292), who warn, “If governments shared their
tourism resources equally among all their constituent
groups and areas, they could effectively water-down the
attractiveness of any single location and the tourist
drawing potential of their overall area since the nexus of
a must see destination would be lost.”
There is logic, however, for making an effort to
disperse tourists across a broader range of destinations.
Pearce (1990) identified the uneven distribution of tourism
as an impediment to regional development and argued
that stronger marketing of remote regions and the
distribution of resources to regional authorities could help
overcome an uneven distribution of wealth. Current “hot
spots,” Pearce argued, often suffer from overdevelo­pment
and the resulting negative social and environmental
impacts that come from an overreliance on tourism, while
other regions are bypassed and are not in the posi­tion
to
capitalize on tourism as a catalyst for development.
Becken (2005) offered a similar observation, noting that
while the geographic concentration of tourism around
major tourist hubs may bring benefits to some, it also
results in problems associated with the built, social, and
biophysical environment. Furthermore, Saarinen noted
(2006, p. 43), “Tourism can be a means of providing
economic development in peripheral regions. . . . In the
context of [a] core-periphery system, tourism can transfer
wealth from the richer, urbanized areas to the poorer
peripheral regions, which have often fallen below national
averages on social and economic indicators related to
well-being and quality of life.”
While not disputing the above, each argument is
peripheral to the important question of advertising
effectiveness. The current study, the first test of its kind
noted in the literature, positively points to the “iconic”
approach as an important ingredient for enhancing
destination image and thus likely visitation. This does
not imply that efforts should not be invested in increasing
the spread of tourism wealth but, it is our opinion, that
first must come the inducement of tourist visitation.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010

9. 160 Journal of Travel Research
Once attracted to the destination by the “magnetism” of
its featured “iconic” attractions, then efforts should be
made to disperse visitors among various areas beyond the
featured attractions. Efforts should likewise be invested
by NTOs and STOs to encourage return visitation, at
which time, the literature informs, guests are more
willing to seek out areas beyond the main attractions that
likely highlighted their initial visit, again dispersing the
economic benefits of tourism.
As a final comment, the intent of the current article was
to determine if the dispersion of advertising promotion
across secondary destinations is an effective approach for
a destination promotional organization. The conclusion
reached (limited to first-time visitors) was that it does not
seem to be and that “iconic” attractions deserve the
attention their status has earned. This message should be
of value to those marketers tasked with the responsibility
of attracting tourists to their state, region, or country while
inevitably faced with the political necessity of keeping
constituents from all corners satisfied. Finding the fulcrum
between the competing demands of advertising effective­ness
and political expediency is indeed a difficult challenge.
We hope these findings help.
References
Alhemoud, A. M., and E. G. Armstrong (1996). “Image of Tourism
Attractions in Kuwait.” Journal of Travel Research, 34 (4):
76-80.
Allen, C. T., and C. Janiszewski (1989). “Assessing the Role of
Contingency Awareness in Attitudinal Conditioning with
Implications for Advertising Research.” Journal of Marketing
Research, 26 (February): 30-43.
Becken, S. (2005). “Towards Sustainable Tourism Transport: An
Analysis of Coach Tourism in New Zealand.” Tourism Geographies,
7 (1): 23-42.
Boehne, E. G. (1969). “The Partial Symmetry of Benefit and Cost
Spillovers and Allocative Efficiency in a Federal System.”
Canadian Journal of Economics, 2 (3): 461-62.
Bowie, D., and F. Buttle (2004). Hospitality Marketing, an
Introduction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Brown, F., and D. Hall (2000). Tourism in Peripheral Areas. Buffalo,
NY: Channel View.
Calder, B. J., L. W. Phillips, and A. M. Tybout (1981). “Designing
Research for Applications.” Journal of Consumer Research, 8
(September): 197-207.
Castro, C. B., E. M. Armaio, and D. M. Ruiz (2007). “The Influence
of Market Heterogeneity on the Relationship Between a Destina­tion’s
Image and Tourists’ Future Behaviour.” Tourism Manage­ment,
28 (1): 175-87.
Chen, C. F., and D. Tsai (2007). “How Destination Image and
Evaluative Factors Affect Behavioral Intentions?” Tourism
Management, 28 (4): 1115-22.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures
of Marketing Constructs.” Journal of Marketing Research, 16
(February): 64-73.
Dadgostar, B., and R. M. Isotalo (1992). “Factors Affecting Time Spent
by Near-home Tourists in City Destinations.” Journal of Travel
Research, 31 (2): 34-39.
Echtner, C. M., and J. R. B. Ritchie (1993). “The Measurement of
Destination Image: An Empirical Assessment.” Journal of Travel
Research, 31 (4): 3-13.
Gartner, W. C. (1996). Tourism Development, Principles, Processes and
Policies. New York: Van Norstrand Reinhold.
Gunn, C. A. (1997). Vacationscape. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Taylor
& Francis.
Judd, D. R., and S. S. Fainstein (1999). The Tourist City. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Kim, J., C. T. Allen, and F. R. Kardes (1996). “An Investigation of the
Mediational Mechanisms Underlying Attitudinal Conditioning.”
Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (3): 318-29.
Kolb, B. M. (2006). Tourism Marketing for Cities and Towns.
Amsterdam: Butterworth Heinemann.
Kotler, P., D. H. Haider, and I. Rein (1993). Marketing Places,
Attracting Investment, Industry and Tourism to Cities, States and
Nations. New York: Free Press.
Litvin, S. W. (2007). “Marketing Visitor Attractions: A Segmentation
Study.” International Journal of Tourism Research, 9 (1): 9-19.
Litvin, S. W., J. C. Crotts, C. Blackwell, and A. Styles (2006).
“Expenditures of Accommodations Tax Revenue: A South Carolina
Study.” Journal of Travel Research, 45 (6): 150-57.
Litvin, S. W., and H. K. Goh (2002). “Self-image Congruity: A Valid
Tourism Theory?” Tourism Management, 23 (1): 81-83.
McKercher, B., and D. Y. Y. Wong (2004). “Understanding Tourism
Behavior: Examining the Combined Effects of Prior Visitation
History and Destination Status.” Journal of Travel Research, 43
(2): 171-79.
McSweeney, F. K., and C. Bierley (1984). “Recent Developments in
Classical Conditioning.” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (2):
619-31.
Middleton, V. T. C. (2001). Marketing in Travel and Tourism. Oxford,
UK: Butterworth Heinemann.
Milman, A., and A. Pizam (1995). “The Role of Awareness and
Familiarity with a Destination: The Central Florida Case.” Journal
of Tourism Research, 33 (3): 21-27.
Murphy, P. E., and A. E. Murphy (2004). Strategic Management for
Tourism Communities: Bridging the Gaps. Buffalo, NY: Channel
View.
Oppermann, M. (1992). “Intranational Tourist Flows in Malaysia.”
Annals of Tourism Research, 19: 482-500.
Pearce, D. (1990). “Tourism, the Regions and Restructuring in New
Zealand.” Journal of Tourism Studies, 1 (2): 33-42.
Pearce, P. L. (1988). The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist
Settings. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Verlag.
Plog, S. C. (1995). Vacation Places Rated. Redondo Beach, CA:
Fielding Worldwide.
Richardson, J., and J. Cohen (1993). “State Slogans: The Case of the
Missing USP.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2 (2-3):
91-109.
Saarinen, J. (2006). “Tourism in Peripheries: The Role of Tourism in
Regional Development in Northern Finland.” In Tourism in
Peripheries: Perspectives from the Far North and South, edited by
D. Miller. Wallingford, UK: CABI, pp. 41-52.
SC Highways (2008). Calendar of Events. http://www.sciway.net/
calendar/october.html.
Sheehan, L., J. R. B. Ritchie, and S. Hudson (2007). “The Destination
Promotion Triad: Understanding Asymmetric Stakeholder
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010

10. Litvin, Mouri / “Iconic” versus “Generic” Advertising Images 161
Interdependencies Among the City, Hotels, and DMO.” Journal of
Travel Research, 46 (1): 64-74.
Shimp, T. A., E. W. Stuart, and R. W. Engle (1991). “A Program of
Classical Conditioning Experiments Testing Variations in the
Conditioned Stimulus and Context.” Journal of Consumer
Research, 18 (1): 1-12.
Smith, P. W., R. A. Feinberg, and D. J. Burns (1998). “An Examination
of Classical Conditioning Principles in an Ecologically Valid
Advertising Context.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
6 (1): 63-72.
Stock, K. (2006). “Sanford Seeks Bigger Bucks for Tourism.” Post
and Courier (Charleston, SC). December 29, 9B, 12B.
Stuart, E. W., T. A. Shimp, and R. W. Engle (1987). “Classical
Conditioning of Consumer Attitudes: Four Experiments in an
Advertising Context.” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (3):
334-49.
Um, S., and J. Crompton (1990). “Attitude Determinants in Tourism
Destination Choice.” Annals of Tourism Research, 17: 432-48.
Voase, R. (1999). “Consuming Tourist Sites/sights: A Note on York.”
Leisure Studies, 18 (4): 289-96.
Woodside, A. G., and S. Lysonski (1989). “A General Model of Travel
Destination Choice.” Journal of Travel Research, 27 (4): 8-14.
Woodside, A. G., and D. Sherrell (1977). “Traveler Evoked Set, and
Inert Sets of Vacation Destinations.” Journal of Travel Research,
16: 14-18.
Stephen W. Litvin is a professor in the department of hospi-tality
and tourism management in the School of Business &
Economics of the College of Charleston.
Nacef Mouri is an assistant professor of marketing in the
School of Management, George Mason University.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com by Hisham Gabr on October 15, 2010