Event Title
Parallel Session 25, Mega Events & Music Festivals Track: Do Mega Events Cause Change in Country or Destination Image? The Case of 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil
Location
Classroom 205
Start Date
14-12-2017 3:45 PM
End Date
14-12-2017 4:10 PM
Description
Background of the study
Over the years, destinations have recognized the fact that hosting an event promotes tourism development and change in tourists' perceived image of a destination (Getz, 2008; Jaffe & Nebenzahl, 1993; Kim & Morrison, 2005; Lee, Lee, & Lee, 2005; Xing & Chalip, 2006). Gartner (1993), in his comprehensive destination image formation framework, found that when a destination hosts an event, the destination image will change because of many related factors, such as media exposure, word of mouth, and so on. The Olympics or the FIFA World Cup are strong brands where the image of the event is known to transfer to destination image (Kotler & Gertner, 2002). These mega sports events bring significant media attention to the host countries. Understanding the massive and primarily positive impact of hosting a mega sports event on the country in terms of increasing awareness and visitation, host countries aim destination branding by developing associations with the event image (Kim, Kang, & Kim, 2014; Ritchie, 1984). Several studies have found a positive influence of mega sports events on destination image and visit intention (e.g., Kaplanidou & Gibson, 2010; Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2007). After hosting the 2006 FIFA World Cup, the German National Tourist Board confirmed that Germany successfully capitalized on the opportunity presented by the mega sports event to enhance its image (as cited in Florek &Insch, 2011). Also, football supporters from New Zealand showed a more favorable overall evaluation of Germany after the World Cup (Florek, Breitbarth, & Conejo, 2008). On the other hand, there are studies that found negative, mixed, or even no effects of hosting a mega sports event on destination image (e.g., Gallarza, Saura, & Garcı́a, 2002; Kim, Gursoy, & Lee, 2006). Some studies reported negative externalities (e.g., traffic congestion, environmental damage) and mismanagement of the event, lack of adequate media management when there was negative publicity regarding the event, lack of interest and support from the media and event organizers in destination promotion, and the discrepancy between the event image and destination image (Getz & Fairley, 2003; Xing & Chalip, 2006). According to Gwinner and Eaton (1999), image transfer theory suggests a two-way transfer; meaning images of an event transfer to the destination image and at the same time, the event image can get enhanced or modified because of destination image. Therefore, the destination and the event may benefit from each other (Florek & Insch, 2011). In cases where there is negative media coverage before or during a mega event, the image transfer on both the mega event and the destination may be in an undesirable direction. For example, the negative media coverage of Brazil due to several environmental and political issues that surfaced just before the Olympics might have caused a negative image for the event itself and the country, contrary to what is expected under normal conditions. The current study measures the change in image of both a mega event and the host destination, using the unique opportunity presented by the 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil.
Methodology
To test the study hypotheses, a longitudinal survey design was conducted with four groups of respondent in an online platform. A structured survey was designed on Qualtrics. The survey items included 7-point Likert scales (1=Extremely Poor, 7= Excellent) measuring country image (9 items), destination image (13 items), and Olympics image (10 items). Besides, 7-point importance scales (1=Extremely unimportant, 7=Extremely important) were used to measure the importance of information sources for destination image (6 items); the same scale was also used to measure the importance of information sources for the Olympics image (6 items). Also, questions regarding the past experience with the country and the Olympics, familiarity with and interest in the Olympics were also included along with the common sociodemographic questions in the end (gender, age, education level, marital status, residence state, annual income, and race). A random sample was acquired from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an Internet survey marketplace of voluntary survey takers. In order to identify the change in interrelations among the Olympics image, destination image, and country image, the same questionnaire was administered in four different times, 1 month before the games (n=101), 1 month after the games (n=94), and 5 months after the games (n=98). One-way ANOVA tools of SPSS 23 were used to analyze the data.
Results
Results in Table 1 showed that the country image, destination image and the event image remained stable until after the 5 months of the Olympic Games organization took place in Brazil. There are changes in two items of country image and one item of the event image that seemed anomaly rather than a pattern of change.
Table 1. Comparison of county image, destination image and Olympic Games image for different groups in different times of measure
Implications
The results of this study imply that image in country, destination and event context is resistant to change in the short term up to 5 months. Further measures are needed in longer time frames in order to see where image change with a pattern is observed. For this reason, one more measure will be conducted at the 11-month interval in order to see if perceivable change exists. The results of this last measure will be presented at the conference along with implications.
References
Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Management, 29(3), 403-428.
Jaffe, E. D. & Nebenzahl, I. D. (1993). Global promotion of country image: Do the Olympics count? In Papadopoulos, N. & Heslop, L. A. (Eds.). Product country images: Impact and role in international marketing (pp. 433-452). New York: International Business Press.
Kim, S. S. & Morrison, A. M. (2005). Change of images of South Korea among foreign tourists after the 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism Management, 26(2), 233-247.
Lee, C.-K., Lee, Y.-K. & Lee, B. (2005). Korea's destination image formed by the 2002 World Cup. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 839-858.
Kotler, P., & Gertner, D. (2002). Country as brand, product, and beyond: A place marketing and brand management perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4), 249–261.
Kim, J., Kang, J. H., & Kim, Y. (2014). Impact of mega sport events on destination image and country image. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 23(3), 161-175.
Ritchie, J. R. B. (1984). Assessing the impact of hallmark events: Conceptual and research issues. Journal of Travel Research, 23(1), 2-11.
Kaplanidou, K. & Gibson, H. J. (2010). Predicting behavioral intentions of active event sport tourists: The case of a small-scale recurring sports event. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15(2), 163–179.
Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2007). The Interrelationship between sport event and destination image and sport tourists' behaviours. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(3-4), 183–206.
Florek, M. & Insch, A. (2011). When fit matters: Leveraging destination and event image congruence. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20(3-4), 265-286.
Florek, M., Breitbarth, T., & Conejo, F. (2008). Mega event = mega impact? Traveling fans' experience and perceptions of the 2006 FIFA World Cup host nation. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 13, 199-219.
Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Garcı́a, H. C. (2002). Destination image: Towards a conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 56–78.
Parallel Session 25, Mega Events & Music Festivals Track: Do Mega Events Cause Change in Country or Destination Image? The Case of 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil
Classroom 205
Background of the study
Over the years, destinations have recognized the fact that hosting an event promotes tourism development and change in tourists' perceived image of a destination (Getz, 2008; Jaffe & Nebenzahl, 1993; Kim & Morrison, 2005; Lee, Lee, & Lee, 2005; Xing & Chalip, 2006). Gartner (1993), in his comprehensive destination image formation framework, found that when a destination hosts an event, the destination image will change because of many related factors, such as media exposure, word of mouth, and so on. The Olympics or the FIFA World Cup are strong brands where the image of the event is known to transfer to destination image (Kotler & Gertner, 2002). These mega sports events bring significant media attention to the host countries. Understanding the massive and primarily positive impact of hosting a mega sports event on the country in terms of increasing awareness and visitation, host countries aim destination branding by developing associations with the event image (Kim, Kang, & Kim, 2014; Ritchie, 1984). Several studies have found a positive influence of mega sports events on destination image and visit intention (e.g., Kaplanidou & Gibson, 2010; Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2007). After hosting the 2006 FIFA World Cup, the German National Tourist Board confirmed that Germany successfully capitalized on the opportunity presented by the mega sports event to enhance its image (as cited in Florek &Insch, 2011). Also, football supporters from New Zealand showed a more favorable overall evaluation of Germany after the World Cup (Florek, Breitbarth, & Conejo, 2008). On the other hand, there are studies that found negative, mixed, or even no effects of hosting a mega sports event on destination image (e.g., Gallarza, Saura, & Garcı́a, 2002; Kim, Gursoy, & Lee, 2006). Some studies reported negative externalities (e.g., traffic congestion, environmental damage) and mismanagement of the event, lack of adequate media management when there was negative publicity regarding the event, lack of interest and support from the media and event organizers in destination promotion, and the discrepancy between the event image and destination image (Getz & Fairley, 2003; Xing & Chalip, 2006). According to Gwinner and Eaton (1999), image transfer theory suggests a two-way transfer; meaning images of an event transfer to the destination image and at the same time, the event image can get enhanced or modified because of destination image. Therefore, the destination and the event may benefit from each other (Florek & Insch, 2011). In cases where there is negative media coverage before or during a mega event, the image transfer on both the mega event and the destination may be in an undesirable direction. For example, the negative media coverage of Brazil due to several environmental and political issues that surfaced just before the Olympics might have caused a negative image for the event itself and the country, contrary to what is expected under normal conditions. The current study measures the change in image of both a mega event and the host destination, using the unique opportunity presented by the 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil.
Methodology
To test the study hypotheses, a longitudinal survey design was conducted with four groups of respondent in an online platform. A structured survey was designed on Qualtrics. The survey items included 7-point Likert scales (1=Extremely Poor, 7= Excellent) measuring country image (9 items), destination image (13 items), and Olympics image (10 items). Besides, 7-point importance scales (1=Extremely unimportant, 7=Extremely important) were used to measure the importance of information sources for destination image (6 items); the same scale was also used to measure the importance of information sources for the Olympics image (6 items). Also, questions regarding the past experience with the country and the Olympics, familiarity with and interest in the Olympics were also included along with the common sociodemographic questions in the end (gender, age, education level, marital status, residence state, annual income, and race). A random sample was acquired from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an Internet survey marketplace of voluntary survey takers. In order to identify the change in interrelations among the Olympics image, destination image, and country image, the same questionnaire was administered in four different times, 1 month before the games (n=101), 1 month after the games (n=94), and 5 months after the games (n=98). One-way ANOVA tools of SPSS 23 were used to analyze the data.
Results
Results in Table 1 showed that the country image, destination image and the event image remained stable until after the 5 months of the Olympic Games organization took place in Brazil. There are changes in two items of country image and one item of the event image that seemed anomaly rather than a pattern of change.
Table 1. Comparison of county image, destination image and Olympic Games image for different groups in different times of measure
Implications
The results of this study imply that image in country, destination and event context is resistant to change in the short term up to 5 months. Further measures are needed in longer time frames in order to see where image change with a pattern is observed. For this reason, one more measure will be conducted at the 11-month interval in order to see if perceivable change exists. The results of this last measure will be presented at the conference along with implications.
References
Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Management, 29(3), 403-428.
Jaffe, E. D. & Nebenzahl, I. D. (1993). Global promotion of country image: Do the Olympics count? In Papadopoulos, N. & Heslop, L. A. (Eds.). Product country images: Impact and role in international marketing (pp. 433-452). New York: International Business Press.
Kim, S. S. & Morrison, A. M. (2005). Change of images of South Korea among foreign tourists after the 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism Management, 26(2), 233-247.
Lee, C.-K., Lee, Y.-K. & Lee, B. (2005). Korea's destination image formed by the 2002 World Cup. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 839-858.
Kotler, P., & Gertner, D. (2002). Country as brand, product, and beyond: A place marketing and brand management perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4), 249–261.
Kim, J., Kang, J. H., & Kim, Y. (2014). Impact of mega sport events on destination image and country image. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 23(3), 161-175.
Ritchie, J. R. B. (1984). Assessing the impact of hallmark events: Conceptual and research issues. Journal of Travel Research, 23(1), 2-11.
Kaplanidou, K. & Gibson, H. J. (2010). Predicting behavioral intentions of active event sport tourists: The case of a small-scale recurring sports event. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15(2), 163–179.
Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2007). The Interrelationship between sport event and destination image and sport tourists' behaviours. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12(3-4), 183–206.
Florek, M. & Insch, A. (2011). When fit matters: Leveraging destination and event image congruence. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20(3-4), 265-286.
Florek, M., Breitbarth, T., & Conejo, F. (2008). Mega event = mega impact? Traveling fans' experience and perceptions of the 2006 FIFA World Cup host nation. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 13, 199-219.
Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Garcı́a, H. C. (2002). Destination image: Towards a conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 56–78.
