The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2514-9792.htm

Building brand equity through Building brand

equity in
communication consistency luxury hotels

in luxury hotels:
an impact-asymmetry analysis 451

c
Maja Seri Received 13 November 2019
Revised 27 March 2020
Department of Marketing and Market Research, Faculty of Economics, 25 May 2020
University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, and Accepted 26 May 2020

Josip Mikulic
Department of Tourism, Faculty of Economics and Business,
University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia and
Institute for Tourism, Zagreb, Croatia

Abstract
Purpose – This paper examines the development of customer-based brand equity through communication
consistency in a luxury hotel segment. Communication consistency is considered as a basic principle of the
integrated marketing communications (IMC) approach.
Design/methodology/approach – The empirical research was conducted among 223 guests during their
stay in five-star deluxe luxury hotels in a Mediterranean country. Data are analyzed through the PLS technique
and impact-asymmetry analysis.
Findings – Communication consistency is found to have a strong positive impact on all brand equity
dimensions, especially on brand trust, brand image and perceived quality. The impact-asymmetry analysis
further revealed negatively asymmetric relationships between communication consistency and six out of seven
brand equity dimensions, except for affective commitment.
Research limitations/implications – Some restrictions related to the measurement scales should be
mitigated in future research.
Practical implications – Communication consistency is confirmed as a core management practice in luxury
hotel business. Marketing professionals operating in this industry are therefore confronted with increasing
challenges of efficient management of IMC.
Originality/value – This work addresses several research calls from the most recent marketing and
hospitality literature. The analysis of the impact of communication consistency has extended our knowledge on
the potential of IMC in creation of a strong brand. Obtained insights into the shape of the relationship between
communication consistency and seven different brand equity dimensions help to better understand the process
of brand equity building in a luxury hotel setting.
Keywords Communication consistency, Integrated marketing communications (IMC), Brand equity, Luxury
hotels, PLS, Impact-asymmetry analysis
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Brand equity has been confirmed as a major topic of interest in the most recent hospitality

c et al., 2018). The concept refers to an extra value that
studies (Liu et al., 2017; Seri
consumers assign to a product through its brand (Pappu et al., 2006). Three main methods
have been identified to build brand equity (Keller, 2003): a) the selection of brand elements,
such as symbol, logo and packaging; b) marketing strategies related to product, price, place
and promotion; and c) integrated marketing communications (IMC), understood as a
coordination of advertising, event marketing, promotions and other communication tools. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Insights
Vol. 3 No. 4, 2020
pp. 451-468
This work was funded by the project DESTBRAND UIP-2014-09-7005 of the Croatian Science © Emerald Publishing Limited
2514-9792
Foundation and University of Valencia - UVEG, Spain, grant number UV-INV_EPDI16-383122. DOI 10.1108/JHTI-11-2019-0119
JHTI The present study focuses on how the last of the three methods, that is, the IMC approach,
3,4 can influence the process of brand equity creation, as integration in marketing communications
is found to be critical in the relationship marketing paradigm (Shin et al., 2015), which is
fundamental for building a strong brand (Keller, 2009). More specifically, the focus will be on
the role of communication consistency, which is considered a basic principle of IMC (Lee and

c et al., 2015). Communication consistency embraces both tactical consistency
Park, 2007; Seri
(i.e. common visual, verbal and sound elements of the message) and strategic consistency (i.e.
452 common brand meaning and content on a number of different means of communication)
(Navarro et al., 2010).
The impact of communication consistency is examined from the consumer perspective, as
consumer perception of marketing communications is a continuing concern in the latest
marketing literature (e.g. Batra and Keller, 2016; Butkouskaya et al., 2020). In the eyes of
consumers, the peculiarity of a brand is strongly influenced by communication (Reid et al.,
2005). This is of particular concern for marketers, who need to track their communication
activities and observe how they affect their target (Keller, 2003).
The objective of this paper is to study the effects of communication consistency on brand
equity in a specific environment, that is, luxury hotel setting. The luxury hotel context has
been selected because of its particular attention toward consumers’ perceptions before and
during their experience with the hotel services. Accordingly, perception of communication
consistency and brand equity components are approached from the travelers’ perspective,
owing to their high involvement in the luxury segment (Walls et al., 2011). Moreover, the most
recent literature on luxury service consumption stresses the need for understanding consumer
behavior and consumer’s connection with the brand in different hospitality luxury contexts,
such as hotels (Liu et al., 2017; Peng and Chen, 2019) and restaurants (Chen and Peng, 2018).
Some studies have also argued the importance of studying communication practices in this
type of business. For example, Kang et al. (2016) argued that an effective internal marketing
communication campaign might encourage customer orientation of the employees at service
encounters at luxury hotels. In their study on the impact of consumer-based brand equity
dimensions in luxury hotels, Liu et al. (2017) suggested that IMC should lead to a greater brand
performance. However, much needs to be done to understand the effectiveness of the IMC
approach from the consumers’ rather than from the firm’s point of view and by providing
empirical evidence, rather than theory-based assumptions (Seri
c et al., 2015).
The empirical study is set in a Mediterranean country that is currently experiencing
considerable tourism growth, thus emphasizing the need to study perceptions of tourists who
use tourism amenities, particularly luxury hotels. For the purpose of this study, luxury hotels
are defined as deluxe, five-star hotels.
This study employs the partial least squares (PLS) method to test the hypotheses
proposed in the research model. In addition, to assess the effects of both low and high levels of
communication consistency, impact-asymmetry analysis (IAA) is performed, as this
technique facilitates detection of potentially significant level effects in the relationships
between communication consistency and brand equity dimensions.
This work addresses several research calls from the recent marketing and hospitality
literature. Firstly, it attempts to answer the research call for new studies on drivers of brand
equity in hotel companies (Huang and Cai, 2015). In particular, it focuses on luxury hotel
segment, where the need for new contributions on consumer-based brand equity has been
underlined (Liu et al., 2017). In addition, the importance of studying IMC for luxury brands
has been emphasized (Karmark et al., 2016), since these brands tend to show remarkable
marketing practices throughout differentiation strategies and have important implications
for brand managers (Beverland and Luxton, 2005). Secondly, it seeks to provide empirical
evidence for the impact of IMC on brand equity dimensions, as suggested by Luxton et al.
(2017). Thirdly, following recommendations for future research from the most recent studies
(e.g. Bruhn and Schnebelen, 2017; Butkouskaya et al., 2020), it supports a customer-oriented Building brand
approach to IMC through an empirical exploration. equity in
luxury hotels
Conceptual framework and research hypotheses
Communication consistency
The idea of marketing communication integration and consistency was born in 1990s. Phelps
and Johnson (1996) discussed three main elements of the IMC paradigm that were initially 453
developed by Nowak and Phelps (1994), that is, one voice, coordination and integration. One
voice perspective suggests that integration consists of maintaining consistency in brand
image, positioning and message through different marketing communication tools such as
advertising, sponsorship, direct marketing, public relations, among others. The integration
dimension is focused on one specific tool – advertising, which seeks to build a strong brand
image, thus influencing consumer behavior. Other marketing communication tools are used
to create necessary synergies with advertising. Finally, coordination stands for integration of
communication strategies and campaigns developed by advertising agencies hired by
organizations and organizations themselves (Phelps and Johnson, 1996).
Lee and Park (2007) developed the “unified communications for consistent message and
image” dimension of IMC, which addresses a single positioning of a brand through message
consistency. These authors argued that creating and maintaining a consistent brand image
should be one of the key goals of the IMC approach. Batra and Keller (2016) have recently
discussed online and offline communication synergies in the proposed “top-down”
communications optimization model, which helps marketers understand whether they
managed to completely integrate their marketing communication tools.
Despite its increased relevance in marketing literature, the concept of communication
consistency has been rather neglected in the hotel industry. A recent study shows that new
information and communication technologies (ICTs) drive consistency in marketing
communication messages and that this relationship is moderated by hotel location (Seri
c
et al., 2016). However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no study addressed the concept of
communication consistency in the luxury hotel context exclusively. Studying marketing
communications perceptions among consumers of this segment is of a particular importance,
owing to the fact that luxury business is both consumer-focused and consumer-centric. This
orientation matches the IMC modus operandi, which encourages firms to learn more about
consumers’ behaviors and habits (consumer-focused) and strives to meet consumers’
expectations and satisfy their needs by active listening (consumer-centric) (Schultz, 2006).

Brand equity dimensions in the hotel industry

Based on Aaker’s (1991) conceptualization, brand equity has frequently been considered as a
multidimensional construct composed of the following four variables: a) brand awareness; b)
brand image; c) perceived quality; and d) brand loyalty. This conceptualization has also been
recently applied in the context of luxury hotels (Liu et al., 2017). Brand awareness, brand
image and perceived quality are understood as perceptual components of the brand equity
concept (Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995). These variables were found to be critical for brand equity
building in luxury hotel industry. Thus, in a study conducted in luxury hotels in Macau, Liu
et al. (2017) concluded that brand awareness was the major dimension of customer-based
brand equity. Brand image emerged as the most important perceptual variable for

c et al., 2018), while
establishing brand equity in five- and four-star hotels in Croatia (Seri
perceived quality was found to play the most significant role in creation of customer-based
brand equity in luxury hotels in South Korea (Kim and Kim, 2005).
Besides these perceptual variables, loyalty has been considered a key element of brand
equity (Aaker, 1991) in hotel firms (Kim and Kim, 2005; Liu et al., 2017). Brand loyalty is a
JHTI relational variable and, together with satisfaction, brand trust and affective brand commitment,
3,4 represents a key variable of the relationship marketing paradigm in hospitality. These later
three constructs were not used in brand equity conceptualization as frequently as those
proposed by Aaker (1991), but were rather referred as strong loyalty drivers (Hsu et al., 2012;
Leeman and Reynolds, 2012; Mattila, 2006). However, some studies from marketing and
hospitality literature (including those approaching luxury hotel businesses) did consider
satisfaction, trust and commitment as brand equity dimensions. With this regard, De
454 Chernatoney et al. (2004) were among the pioneers who advocated incorporating satisfaction
into measures of brand equity, owing to its high relevance in services. The authors developed a
brand equity measure for service companies and concluded that satisfaction was one of the
three key dimensions of brand equity (de Chernatoney et al., 2004). In addition, trust and
commitment were included as key dimensions of brand equity in the first proposals of brand
equity measurements in marketing literature (Lassar et al., 1995; Martin and Brown, 1990). Some
authors employed these conceptualizations in their studies conducted in hotel contexts. For
example, Dioko and So (2012) adapted the scale of Lassar et al. (1995) and considered trust and
attachment (i.e. affective commitment) as two out of five dimensions of destination and hotel
brand equity. Kimpakorn and Tocquer (2010) demonstrated that, in addition to brand
differentiation, brand trust was the most important dimension of service brand equity for
luxury hotels in Thailand. The authors also argued that employee brand commitment was
critical for creation of a strong hotel brand (Kimpakorn and Tocquer, 2010). Furthermore, Hsu
et al. (2012) developed a brand equity model for luxury hotels, where trust was one of its
dimensions. In a later study, the generalizability of that model has been confirmed across three
different cross-cultural contexts (Oh and Hsu, 2014). Considering this scientific evidence form
marketing and hospitality literature, we believe that satisfaction, trust and affective
commitment might be considered as components of hotel brand equity, in addition to more
frequently used dimensions (i.e. awareness, image, perceived quality and loyalty).
Based on all these findings, this study focuses on seven key elements of hotel brand
equity: a) brand awareness; b) brand image; c) perceived quality; d) brand loyalty; e) brand
satisfaction, f) brand trust; and g) affective brand commitment. Three of these concepts are
perceptual brand equity dimensions (i.e. awareness, image and perceived quality), while four
are relational (i.e. loyalty, satisfaction, trust and affective commitment). To set up the
empirical study, the following section discusses the relationships existing between these
brand equity dimensions and communication consistency.

Relationships between communication consistency and brand equity dimensions

Recent studies have discussed that marketing communications influence brand equity as a
form of accumulated investment in the brand (e.g. Liao and Cheng, 2014). It has been argued
that marketing communication activities can affect customer-based brand equity through
brand awareness (Keller, 2003, 2009). Camilleri (2018) suggested that a successful IMC plan
could create awareness in tourism and hospitality businesses through different marketing
communication tools such as advertising or publicity. Berry (2000) demonstrated that
marketing communications influenced awareness as a secondary source of brand equity. In
particular, the company’s presented brand, operationalized in terms of advertising and
promotions, was found to have a primary impact on brand awareness, while external brand
communications, measured through word of mouth and publicity, had a secondary impact on
brand awareness. A different study set within a hotel context provided empirical evidence for
this impact by finding positive effects of company’s presented brand and external brand
communications on hotel brand awareness (So and King, 2010). However, future research is
necessary on the relationship between IMC and brand awareness (Seri
c et al., 2014).
Considering prior empirical evidence, the following research hypothesis is proposed:
 H1. Communication consistency has a positive effect on brand awareness. Building brand
The integration of marketing communication programs can also effect brand meanings, thus equity in
helping to shape the image of the brand (Anantachart, 2004; Keller, 2009). Unlike an luxury hotels
inconsistent message, the one that delivers consistent information is found to encourage a
strong image suggestion in consumers’ memory. This means that no matter which medium
has been employed to deliver the message, if the message consistency is pursued, consumers
will retain the intended image (McGrath, 2005). Accordingly, it has been suggested that 455
marketing communications could influence the image of the hotel (Kandampully and

c et al. (2014) demonstrated that IMC affected positively brand image of
Suhartanto, 2000). Seri
hotels in Italy. Xie et al. (2016) discussed the importance of communication processes for
purchase decision-making of luxury hotel consumers. In particular, they suggested that an
efficient internal brand communication could create a positive customers’ perceived brand
image. All these findings suggest that hotel guests will probably perceive a strong brand
image once they have received a consistent brand message, which leads to the following
research hypothesis:
H2. Communication consistency has a positive effect on brand image.
Information provided through marketing communications is often interpreted by the
consumer as an indicator of superior quality (Cobb-Walgren et al., 1995). Accordingly, Israeli
et al. (2000) suggested that marketing communications were frequently associated with
quality. Shi et al. (2016) showed that word-of-mouth communication had a major influence on
perceived quality among consumers. Based on previous literature, Pauwels et al. (2016) stated
that “high spending on both online and offline media may signal a brand’s quality and create
credibility” (p. 741). Similarly, a number of studies concluded that communication is a quality
asset in hotel companies (e.g. Jasinskas et al., 2016; Kim and Kim, 2005). Nevertheless, these
works have mainly centered on the communication of hotel employees. The present study
aims to explore whether marketing communication messages delivered through a number of
different sources can contribute to perception of quality and the following research
hypothesis is posited accordingly:
H3. Communication consistency has a positive effect on perceived quality.
Integration of marketing communications seeks to encourage relationships between customers
and brands, which ultimately leads to creation of brand equity (Anantachart, 2004). As noted by
Keller (2009), IMC can reinforce consumer–brand loyalty relationships by enhancing connection
between the customer and the brand. In particular, consistent brand messages that companies
seek to deliver through IMC might emphasize brand loyalty in the same way inconsistent
messages can jeopardize it (McGrath, 2005). With this regard, Melewar et al. (2017) found that
both controlled communication (such as promotions, visual identity or website) and uncontrolled
or semicontrolled communication (through word of mouth, social media marketing, media and
public relations) were important drivers of loyalty. Within the hotel context, it has been argued
that marketing communications are key assets for boosting guest loyalty (Ekinci et al., 2008).
Imrie and Fyall (2000) stated that there was a positive relationship between marketing
communications and customer retention. Hennessey et al. (2010) discussed how companies seek
to shape customers’ perceptions through marketing communication activities in order to
enhance their loyalty and behavioral intentions. Lo et al. (2017) have recently found that an
efficient communication with hotel guests and members of loyalty programs further encouraged
their loyalty toward luxury hotel brands. On the basis of these findings, we hypothesize that:
H4. Communication consistency has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
JHTI Customer satisfaction with the brand is regarded as a signal of brand performance (e.g. Reid,

c et al., 2015). Accordingly,
2005) and one of the final goals of IMC campaigns (Keller, 2009; Seri
3,4

Reid (2005) and Seric et al. (2015) concluded that IMC had a positive and significant impact on
consumers’ satisfaction with products and services. A recent study also showed that IMC
customer-based perception had positive consequences on postpurchase consumer behavior, as
it affected positively consumer satisfaction, word of mouth and repurchase intention
(Butkouskaya et al., 2020). This is because communication consistency enables a clear message
456 perception and meaning integration, which ultimately increases customers’ satisfaction with
their purchase (Finne and Gr€onroos, 2017). Finally, there is empirical evidence for a positive
impact of communication practices of luxury hotels on brand relationship quality, measured in
terms of satisfaction, trust and commitment (Lo et al., 2017). These findings suggest that
perception of communication consistency might as well affect customer satisfaction with a
hotel brand, which is why we posit the following research hypothesis:
H5. Communication consistency has a positive effect on brand satisfaction.
An efficient communication campaign is critical when companies seek to attract new
customers, but also when they want to maintain the existing ones. Communication is therefore
positively related with trust (Zineldin and Jonsson, 2000). Consequently, companies that
manage to communicate their message in an effective way are perceived as highly reliable
(Brownell and Reynolds, 2002). On the contrary, confused marketing message leads to
consumer distrust, which makes out of IMC a strong driver of trustful relationships between
consumers and brands (Bruhn and Schnebelen, 2017). This also means that integration and
long-term consistency of marketing communications will have a positive effect on the
probability that customers will purchase the brand again. In particular, the messages
customers receive through promotional material can influence their trust toward the hospitality
company (Baloglu, 2002). Through marketing communications, the hotel creates a brand name,
which not only helps consumers visualize intangible goods but also provides a guarantee in the
purchase of sight-unseen products, which in turn increases customer trust in the hotel brand
(So and King, 2010). Kang et al. (2017) have recently argued the importance of communication
processes between the hotel company and its customers for creation of a positive brand
experience, which influences positively both trust and attachment with the hotel brand. Studies
therefore conclude that communication is fundamental to building trust and appears to be one
of the most important assets in building relationships within the hospitality industry (Leeman
and Reynolds, 2012). In accordance, the following hypothesis will be tested in this study:

H6. Communication consistency has a positive effect on brand trust.

In addition to trust, it has also been suggested that communication is an important antecedent
of commitment, meaning that both trust and commitment are the results of a successful
communication (Leeman and Reynolds, 2012; Zineldin and Jonsson, 2000). Accordingly, studies
posit that communication directly influences a client’s commitment to a relationship (Morgan
and Hunt, 1994). Consistent with these ideas, Cai and Hobson (2004) highlighted that steady
delivery of brand messages is an imperative for building customers’ emotional attachment to
the brand. In hotel business, people develop affective commitment toward strong brands
(Mattila, 2006), and this process is boosted by integration in marketing communications, which
is capable of eliciting positive feelings toward the brand and a strong consumer–brand
relationship (Keller, 2009). In particular, hotel guests develop emotional bonds with a brand as
their experience with it increases and marketing communications are one of the influential
factors of that experience (Kang et al., 2017). On the basis of these considerations we posit the
final research hypothesis and we propose our research model (see Figure 1):
H7. Communication consistency has a positive effect on affective brand commitment.
 Building brand
equity in
luxury hotels

457

Figure 1.
Research model

Research method
In order to test all formulated research hypotheses, an empirical study was conducted among
223 guests who stayed in five-star deluxe hotel properties in a Mediterranean country.
Initially, all luxury hotels of the country were invited to participate in this study (N 5 27).
Among them, managers of 12 hotels agreed, with the response rate of 44.44%, allowing 20
guests to be interviewed in each hotel. Once the permission from managers was received,
guests were approached in hotel lobbies. Respondents were selected according to their
availability to participate in the research and time they were willing to dedicate to answer
questions. The sample profile is presented in Table 1.
We used a structured questionnaire to collect data. The questionnaire was mainly
administered by one of the authors through personal interviews with guests. Regarding the
employed measurement scales, we used the adapted scale of Lee and Park (2007) to assess
communication consistency. Hotel guests were asked to state to what extent they perceived
message consistency on different communication tools and channels, such as advertising,
hotel website, promotional material and word of mouth, and to what degree hotel managed to
insure a consistent brand image through them. To operationalize seven brand equity
dimensions, this study used adapted versions of the scales of Kim and Kim (2005) for brand
image, perceived quality, brand loyalty and brand satisfaction and of Kim et al. (2008),
Hsu et al. (2012) and Mattila (2006) for brand awareness, brand trust and affective brand
commitment, respectively. The brand image scale measured aspects such as luxurious,
suitable for high class, high level of service, feeling special, differentiated image, while
perceived quality measured hotel attractiveness, staff appearance and good manners,
treatment as a special customer, anticipation of specific needs and effective complaint
handling, among others. Brand loyalty was assessed through intention to return, intention to
recommend and nonintention to change. Brand satisfaction was measured through different
levels of satisfaction and delight, while for hotel brand awareness, recall and recognition were
considered. Finally, brand trust was operationalized through the degree of hotel guest
confidence in the brand’s management and perception of the extent to which the hotel brand
knows how to do business, whereas affective brand commitment was measured through the
strength of commitment to the relationship with the hotel brand, the level of emotional
attachment to the hotel brand and the extent to which the relationship with the hotel brand
enhances personal meaning. Most of these scales have been employed in studies conducted in
JHTI Hotel guests N 5 223 %
3,4
Gender
Male 124 55.6
Female 99 44.4
Age
458 18–25 3 1.3
26–35 41 18.4
36–45 76 34.1
46–55 56 25.1
56–65 34 15.2
>65 13 5.9
Education
Primary education 1 0.4
Secondary education 52 23.3
Higher education 118 53.0
Postgraduate education 52 23.3
Income
Without salary 9 4.0
>1,000 euros 20 9.0
1,000–3,000 euros 118 52.9
<3,000 euros 76 34.1
Motive
Vacations 190 85.2
Table 1. Business 27 12.1
Sample profile Other 6 2.7

upscale and luxury hotel contexts and are therefore considered as an appropriate
measurement tool for this study. All items were measured with a five-point Likert scale.

Data analysis and results

PLS was used for data analysis, as this technique is appropriate for estimation of rather
complex causal models (Ali et al., 2018), which deal with new or changing constructs (Chin
and Newsted, 1999). In addition, PLS is found to be suitable for the analysis of smaller
samples (Ali et al., 2018; Chin, 1998).
Validity and reliability of measurement scales
In the first step, the measurement scale validity was assessed. In particular, convergent
validity was assured by checking the factor loadings and average variance extracted (AVE).
Some items of perceived quality and brand image were removed because of loadings lower
than 0.6. Convergent validity was observed as all AVE values exceeded 0.5 (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981) (see Table 2).
Secondly, we examined the construct reliability. All Cronbach’s alpha estimates were
above the recommended cutoff of 0.7, while composite reliability (CR) indices were higher
than 0.6. This suggested that internal consistency of the measurement tool was acceptable
(see Table 2).
Discriminant validity was examined observing the square root of the AVE (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981), cross-loadings and the heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT).
The square root of the AVE for each construct came out to be greater than all corresponding
correlations. Once we conducted the cross-loadings analysis, we removed one item of
 t CRON.
Building brand
Factors Items Loadings Values α CR AVE equity in
luxury hotels
Communication Consistency of communication tools 0.93* 53.64 0.85 0.95 0.87
consistency and channels
Consistency of brand image 0.94* 66.20
Brand awareness Hotel awareness 0.83* 21.12 0.86 0.90 0.70
Brand awareness 0.79* 17.98 459
Recall of hotel’s characteristics 0.86* 32.41
Recognition of hotel among others 0.86* 35.41
Brand Comfortable 0.72* 18.16 0.89 0.91 0.54
image High level of service 0.80* 27.05
Clean image 0.83* 38.14
Luxurious 0.75* 18.49
Suitable place for high class 0.80* 24.86
Feeling special 0.72* 18.09
Kind staff 0.69* 15.14
Big and spacious 0.67* 14.39
Differentiated image 0.64* 12.02
Perceived quality Treatment as a special customer 0.79* 20.27 0.91 0.93 0.61
Well-dressed, clean and neat staff 0.76* 18.66
Good manner of the staff 0.80* 25.55
Services at promised times 0.78* 26.12
Effective complaint handling 0.79* 29.47
Active communication with guests 0.85* 44.43
Attractiveness of the hotel 0.67* 13.50
Anticipation of specific needs 0.78* 23.11
Brand Intention to return 0.88* 40.92 0.82 0.89 0.74
loyalty Intention to recommend 0.87* 42.95
Nonintention to change 0.83* 18.22
Brand Satisfaction 0.97* 178.07 0.94 0.97 0.94
satisfaction Delight 0.97* 163.98
Brand Confidence in the hotel 0.95* 101.15 0.90 0.95 0.91
trust It knows how to do the business 0.95* 94.61
Affective Strong affective commitment 0.90* 50.39 0.91 0.95 0.85
brand Emotional attachment 0.94* 71.43 Table 2.
commitment Relationship with personal meaning 0.92* 66.01 Measurement scales:
Note(s): CRON. α 5 Cronbach’s Alpha; CR 5 Composite Reliability; AVE 5 Average variance convergent validity
extracted; *p < 0.01 and reliability

perceived quality, as it loaded highly with a different construct, that is, brand image. Finally,
we examined the HTMT, which suggests that the results confirming hypothesized structural
paths are real, instead of being just the results of statistical discrepancies (Hair et al., 2017). As
all the obtained values were below the threshold of 0.9, discriminant validity has been
corroborated (see Table 3).
Estimation of the causal model
After checking the quality of the measurement tool, we estimated our structural model on the
basis of 5,000 bootstrapping runs. For the relative prediction power of the model we observed
R squared (R2), f squared (f2) and Q squared (Q2) indices. All R2 values satisfied the threshold
of 0.10 (Falk and Miller, 1992). The f2 effects ranged from 0.19 to 0.72, thus showing medium
and large predictive relevance of the endogenous construct. More specifically, moderate
effects are found of communication consistency on brand awareness and affective brand
commitment, while the effects on all the other variables of the model were strong, as were
greater than 0.35 (Hair et al., 2017). Positive values came out from the blindfolding cross-
JHTI validation method (Chin, 1998). These results suggest that our hypotheses will have good
3,4 prediction power (see Table 4).
Results presented in Table 4 show that all hypotheses are confirmed. We found that
communication consistency impacts in a positive and significant way all brand equity
elements, namely: a) awareness (β 5 0.40, p < 0.01; H1); b) image (β 5 0.62, p < 0.01; H2); c)
perceived quality (β 5 0.61, p < 0.01; H3); d) loyalty (β 5 0.59, p < 0.01; H4); e) satisfaction
(β 5 0.58, p < 0.01; H5); f) trust (β 5 0.65, p < 0.01; H6); and g) affective commitment (β 5 0.46,
460 p < 0.01; H7).

Impact-asymmetry analysis
After examining the effects of communication consistency on the individual brand equity
dimensions, we conducted an IAA to obtain a more detailed picture of the shape of examined
relationships. In particular, the goal of IAA is to individually assess the effects of low levels of
communication consistency, on one hand, and high levels of communication consistency, on
the other hand. Originally, IAA has been introduced as a tool for detecting asymmetric effects
in customer satisfaction formation (Mikulic and Prebe
zac, 2008). Basically, the technique is an
extension of the penalty reward contrast analysis (PRCA; Brandt, 1987) which uses multiple
regression analysis with binary-coded dummy variables as regressors. Both PRCA and IAA
have also been applied to study asymmetric effects of constructs, which are modeled as latent
variables (e.g. F€
uller and Matzler, 2008; Mikulic et al., 2015).
To prepare the data for the IAA, in a first step latent variable scores were calculated for all
examined constructs in this study. Since this analysis seeks to assess potential asymmetries

Factors Mean SD F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8

F1: Communication consistency 4.08 0.94 0.93 0.70 0.68 0.47 0.64 0.74 0.70 0.50
F2: Brand image 4.23 0.65 0.61 0.74 0.71 0.49 0.70 0.73 0.77 0.62
F3: Brand loyalty 4.18 0.94 0.58 0.62 0.86 0.43 0.85 0.82 0.75 0.67
F4: Brand awareness 3.53 1.08 0.40 0.43 0.38 0.84 0.29 0.36 0.38 0.56
F5: Brand satisfaction 4.42 0.81 0.57 0.64 0.76 0.27 0.97 0.76 0.75 0.48
F6: Brand trust 4.35 0.81 0.65 0.66 0.71 0.32 0.70 0.95 0.85 0.59
Table 3. F7: Perceived quality 4.37 0.64 0.61 0.69 0.65 0.33 0.69 0.77 0.78 0.54
Measurement scales: F8: Affective brand commitment 3.22 1.14 0.45 0.56 0.58 0.50 0.45 0.53 0.49 0.92
mean values and Note(s): SD 5 Standard Deviation; diagonal italics data are the square root of AVE 5 Average variance
discriminant validity extracted; under the diagonal data are estimated correlations. Above the diagonal data are HTMT values

Hypotheses Confirmation β t

H1: Communication consistency → Brand awareness YES 0.40* 6.06

H2: Communication consistency → Brand image YES 0.62* 11.48
H3: Communication consistency → Perceived quality YES 0.61* 12.45
H4: Communication consistency → Brand loyalty YES 0.59* 11.39
H5: Communication consistency → Brand satisfaction YES 0.58* 9.34
H6: Communication consistency → Brand trust YES 0.65* 12.08
H7: Communication consistency → Affective brand commitment YES 0.46* 9.16
Note(s): Brand awareness: R2 5 0.16; f2 5 0.19; Q2 5 0.11; Brand image: R2 5 0.38; f2 5 0.60; Q2 5 0.19;
Table 4. Perceived quality: R2 5 0.38; f2 5 0.60; Q2 5 0.21; Brand loyalty: R2 5 0.35; f2 5 0.50; Q2 5 0.22; Brand
Results of hypotheses satisfaction: R2 5 0.34; f2 5 0.48; Q2 5 0.29; Brand trust: R2 5 0.36; f2 5 0.72; Q2 5 0.38; Affective brand
testing commitment: R2 5 0.21; f2 5 0.25; Q2 5 0.16; *p < 0.01
in the relationships between communication consistency and the individual brand equity Building brand
dimensions, two sets of dummy variables were created for the communication consistency equity in
construct. The first dummy variable was obtained by coding only lowest-quartile values as 1,
while all other values are coded zero. This dummy variable was employed to analyze the
luxury hotels
penalizing effect of low communication consistency on the brand equity dimensions.
Analogously, the second dummy variable was obtained by coding only highest-quartile
values as 1 and coding all other values zero. This dummy variable was used to estimate the
rewarding or enhancing effect of high communication consistency values. Splitting latent 461
variable scores into high and low levels, based on lowest- and highest-quartile values, is an
approach that has been used in other studies that examine asymmetric effects with latent
variables as regressors (e.g. Mikulic et al., 2015).
After preparing the input data, the two dummy variables were then regressed against the
latent variable scores of the individual brand equity dimensions as dependent variables. The
regressions each yielded two coefficients, one of which quantifies the impact of low levels of
communication consistency (penalty score; PS), whereas the other quantifies the effect of high
communication consistency (reward score; RS). Absolute values of penalty and reward scores
were further totaled to obtain a measure of the range of impact (impact range; IR). In order to
facilitate easier interpretation of results, the penalty and reward scores can be divided by
their respective IR scores to obtain indicators of the penalizing and rewarding potentials,
which sum up to 1. Finally, by subtracting the penalizing potential from the rewarding
potential, one obtains an estimate of the impact-asymmetry (IA), which can range from
1
(communication consistency has only penalizing potential) over 0 (communication
consistency has equal penalizing and rewarding potentials) to þ1 (communication
consistency has only rewarding potentials). The results are presented in Table 5.
The findings offer the following picture. Low levels of communication consistency have
a stronger negative effect on each of the brand equity dimensions than high levels of
communication consistency have a positive impact (negative IA scores), except for
affective brand commitment (IA 5 0.094). Put differently, low communication consistency
causes larger damage than high consistency causes gains for all except one brand equity
dimension. Moreover, the results reveal that the largest discrepancies between relative
penalizing and rewarding effects are present for brand awareness (IA 5
0.609) and
brand image (IA 5
0.484). Beyond a certain level, communication consistency thus does
not add as much to brand awareness and image building, like it does penalize brand
awareness and brand image when communication consistency is at low levels. In this
regard, communication consistency can be seen as a basic prerequisite for assuring certain
levels of brand awareness and image.

Penalty Reward Impact Penalizing Rewarding Impact

Score Score Range potential Potential Asymmetry R2

Brand awareness
0.863* 0.210ns 1.073 0.804 0.196
0.609 0.193

Brand image
1.203* 0.418* 1.621 0.742 0.258
0.484 0.426
Perceived quality
0.889* 0.613* 1.502 0.592 0.408
0.184 0.352
Brand loyalty
0.876* 0.506* 1.382 0.634 0.366
0.267 0.299
Brand satisfaction
0.919* 0.465* 1.383 0.664 0.336
0.328 0.302
Brand trust
0.921* 0.553* 1.473 0.625 0.375
0.250 0.340
Affective brand
0.540* 0.653* 1.193 0.453 0.547 0.094 0.227 Table 5.
commitment Impact-asymmetry
Note(s): Penalty and reward scores are unstandardized regression coefficients; *p < 0.01 analysis
JHTI Discussion and implications
3,4 Theoretical contribution. This study identifies seven possible components of customer-based
brand equity in the luxury hotel segment. These can be classified into perceptual dimensions
(i.e. brand awareness, brand image and perceived quality) and relational dimensions (i.e.
brand loyalty, brand satisfaction, brand trust and affective brand commitment). The
perception of communication consistency, considered as a basic principle of IMC, is found to
influence all these variables, with a very high level of significance (99%).
462 Our findings indicate that IMC not only influences brand awareness but also improves
consumers’ perceptions of image and quality, thus confirming a significant influence of
communication consistency on perceptual variables of brand equity. This finding is in
accordance with those obtained by Berry (2000) and So and King (2010) in service and hotel
companies, respectively.
Most importantly, the results suggest that IMC plays a significant role in the relationship
marketing paradigm. Our study shows that communication consistency encourages
profitable and long-lasting relationships with guests of luxury hotels, as it is found to
have a positive and significant effect on the relational elements of brand equity, that is,
loyalty, satisfaction, trust and affective commitment. These results corroborate the findings
of the study of Butkouskaya et al. (2020) conducted in several different industries and the
study of Lo et al. (2017) from the hotel industry.
The strongest relationship of the model is found between communication consistency and
trust, followed by relationships between communication consistency and brand image and
perceived quality, respectively. The weakest relationship, although highly significant (99%),
is the one between communication consistency and brand awareness. This final result is
rather surprising as, traditionally, the primary goal of marketing communications was the
promotion of the brand and subsequent increase of its awareness. It seems that the current
role of IMC has gone further and is meant to create confidence among consumers and
subsequent creation of long-lasting relationship with the brand. The IAA, however, provides
a potential explanation for this somewhat surprising result. The results of the IAA showed
that high levels of communication consistency do not have a statistically significant influence
on brand awareness, while low communication consistency, in turn, has a very strong
negative effect on brand awareness. In this regard, communication consistency is confirmed
as a basic prerequisite for assuring sufficient awareness levels, rather than a means for
achieving high brand awareness.
Practical implications. Marketing communications have long been recognized as essential
in hospitality, as products offered in this specific industry are intangible and therefore cannot
be assessed before their consumption (Lewis and Chambers, 2000). This suggests that
consumption of hotel services is highly experiential (Kang et al., 2017) and this is more evident
in the luxury hotel segment than in any other.
Communication consistency should be regarded a core marketing practice in this type of
hotel business. Hotel marketers are encouraged to implement IMC programs in general and
convey unified and consistent messages to their final consumers in particular. This can be
accomplished through delivery of consistent brand messages throughout marketing
communication tools and channels. Based on target groups and communication goals,
marketers have to define the set of communication tools that will be used, specify their
functions and coordinate them to launch a consistent hotel brand message and image. “One
voice” principle has to be accomplished by launching not necessarily identical messages, but
lacking contradiction and inconsistency. This means that messages delivered through
advertising campaigns, public relations or direct marketing initiatives have to reflect a single
brand identity and a consistent brand image by strategically linking intangible and tangible
brand associations.
 The results of this study suggest that, in addition to perceptual components of brand Building brand
equity, communication consistency strongly influences its relational dimensions. As equity in
communication consistency exists only if it is perceived by the customers, hotel guests
and prospects should be highly engaged into the hotel communication processes. This asks
luxury hotels
for hotel marketers being capable of integrating their communications and establishing a
meaningful dialogue with consumers through different contact points. Social media
communications play a critical role here, as they encourage consumers to become highly
proactive, thus becoming true comanagers of brands. Asking for feedback on existing 463
communication campaigns and inviting customers to participate in launching the new ones
are strongly encouraged in the current new technological area of empowered customers. This
has a particular repercussion in the luxury hotel industry, where a strong connection exists
between the customer and the service offered by the brand (Peng and Chen, 2019). By this
means, communicating unique experiences, emotions and values and making customers an
essential part of this communication process become a new of way of bonding between
luxury hotel brands and guests.

Conclusion, limitations and future research

This paper examined the effects of hotel guests’ perceptions of communication consistency
on their evaluation of different components of brand equity. The study makes a major
contribution to hospitality marketing literature by testing the antecedent role of integration
of marketing communications in the process of formation of brand equity in luxury hotels
through a two-step procedure: structural equation modeling and IAA. Academics who study
luxury hotel setting could employ the research model tested in this study. Future works
might also replicate the conceptual framework presented here in different research settings.
Our findings might be affected by the specific type of business in hospitality, that is, luxury
hotels, which is why future research might usefully repeat our research model in other sectors
to examine the generalization of the findings. It would also be useful to include some
moderating variables in the model, such as motive or frequency of stay.
This study has some limitations related with measurement scales, which should be amended
in future research. Although this work employs the scales that were frequently adopted in
hospitality marketing literature, the measurement of some variables should be reviewed. More
specifically, we operationalized communication consistency though two items only, as these
aspects are found to be easily evaluated by hotel guests. Future studies should embrace more
communication consistency elements and test their relevance in brand equity building. In
addition, more rigorous measurement of brand image and perceived quality should be
employed, as some indicators of these variables did not result significant during the evaluation
of the scale measurement. This is probably due to the fact that these two constructs have a more
formative rather than reflective nature. In this study we have employed the brand image and
perceived quality scales that were specifically designed for the luxury hotel settings and we
treated the items the same way they were originally tested. However, items of these variables are
more formative rather than reflective in relation to their respective constructs (Mikulic, 2018;
Mikulic and Ryan, 2018), which is why we encourage future researchers to consider these two
concepts as formative and to develop and test their measurement tools accordingly.

References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, Free Press, New York, NY.
Ali, F., Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Ryu, K. (2018), “An assessment of the use
of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 514-538.
JHTI Anantachart, S. (2004), “Integrated marketing communications and market planning: their
implications to brand equity building”, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 11 No. 1,
3,4 pp. 101-125.
Baloglu, S. (2002), “Dimensions of customer loyalty: separating friends from well wishers”, The Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 47-59.
Batra, R. and Keller, K.L. (2016), “Integrating marketing communications: new findings, new lessons,
and new ideas”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80, pp. 122-145.
464
Berry, L.L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 128-137.
Beverland, M. and Luxton, S. (2005). “Managing integrated marketing communication (IMC) through
strategic decoupling. How luxury wine firms retain brand leadership while appearing to be
wedded to the past”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 103-116.
Brandt, R.D. (1987), “A procedure for identifying value-enhancing service components using customer
satisfaction survey data”, in Surprenant, C. (Ed.), Add Value to Your Service, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 61-65.
Brownell, J. and Reynolds, D. (2002), “Strengthening the food and beverage purchaser–supplier
partnership: behaviors that make a difference”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 49-61.
Bruhn, M. and Schnebelen, S. (2017), “Integrated marketing communication: from an instrumental to a
customer-centric perspective”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 464-489.
Butkouskaya, V., Llonch-Andreu, J. and Alarcon-del-Amo, M.D.C. (2020), “Inter-country customer-
perspective analysis of strategic antecedents and consequences for post-purchase behaviour in
Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC)”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
pp. 1-16, doi: 10.1080/08961530.2020.1731901.
Cai, L.A. and Hobson, J.S.P. (2004), “Making hotel brands work in a competitive environment”, Journal
of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 197-208.
Camilleri, M.A. (2018), Travel Marketing, Tourism Economics and the Airline Product. An Introduction
to Theory and Practice, Springer, Cham.
Chen, A. and Peng, N. (2018), “Examining consumers’ intentions to dine at luxury restaurants while
traveling”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 71, pp. 59-67.
Chin, W. and Newsted, P.R. (1999), “Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using
partial least squares”, in Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 307-341.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, in
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., Ruble, C.A. and Donthu, N. (1995), “Brand equity, brand preference and purchase
intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 25-40.
De Chernatony, L., Harris, F. and Christodoulides, G. (2004), “Developing a brand performance
measure for financial services brands”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 15-33.
Dioko, L.D. and So, S.I.A. (2012), “Branding destinations versus branding hotels in a gaming
destination - examining the nature and significance of co-branding effects in the case study of
Macao”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 554-563.
Ekinci, Y., Dawes, P.L. and Massey, G.R. (2008), “An extended model of the antecedents and
consequences of consumer satisfaction for hospitality services”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 42 Nos 1/2, pp. 35-68.
Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B. (1992), A Primer for Soft Modeling, The University of Akron, Akron, OH.
Finne, A. and Gr€onroos, C. (2017), “Communication-in-use: customer-integrated marketing
communication”, European Journal of Marketing Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 445-463.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable Building brand
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
equity in
uller, J. and Matzler, K. (2008), “Customer delight and market segmentation: an application of the
F€
three-factor theory of customer satisfaction on life style groups”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29
luxury hotels
No. 1, pp. 116-126.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oakes, CA.
465
Hennessey, S.M., Yun, D., MacDonald, R. and MacEachern, M. (2010), “The effects of advertising
awareness and media form on travel intentions”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 217-243.
Hsu, C.H.C., Oh, H. and Assaf, A.G. (2012), “A customer-based brand equity model for upscale hotels”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 81-93.
Huang, Z.L. and Cai, J.A. (2015), “Modeling consumer-based brand equity for multinational hotel
brands: when hosts become guests”, Tourism Management, Vol. 46, pp. 431-443.
Imrie, R. and Fyall, A. (2000). “Customer retention and loyalty in the independent mid-market hotel
sector”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 39-54.
Israeli, A.A., Adler, N., Mehrez, A. and Sundali, J.A. (2000), “Investigating the use of advertising for
communicating a hotel’s strategic assets”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 23-37.
Jasinskas, E., Streimikiene, D., Svagzdiene, B. and Simanavicius, A. (2016), “Impact of hotel service
quality on the loyalty of customers”, Economic research-Ekonomska istra
zivanja, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 559-572.
Kandampully, J. and Suhartanto, D. (2000), “Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: the role of
customer satisfaction and image”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 346-351.
Kang, J.W., Heo, J.H. and Kim, J.H. (2016), “The followership of hotel employees and the relationship
between occupational burnout, job stress, and customer orientation: targeting the hotel service
providers at luxury hotels”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 345-358.
Kang, J., Manthiou, A., Sumarjan, N. and Tang, L. (2017), “An investigation of brand experience on
brand attachment, knowledge, and trust in the lodging industry”, Journal of Hospitality
Marketing and Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Karmark, E., Remke, R., Buzzanell, P.M., Carroll, B., Fairhurst, G., Holm, F. and Christensen, L.T.
(2016), “Communication perspectives on a luxury brand organization: the case of Georg Jensen”,
Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 121-142.
Keller, K.L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity,
2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Keller, K.L. (2009), “Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications environment”,
Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 15 Nos 2/3, pp. 139-155.
Kim, H.B. and Kim, W.G. (2005), “The relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance in
luxury hotels and restaurants”, Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 549-560.
Kim, W.G., Jin-Sun, B. and Kim, H.J. (2008), “Multidimensional customer-based brand equity and its
consequences in midpriced hotels”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 235-254.
Kimpakorn, N. and Tocquer, G. (2010), “Service brand equity and employee brand commitment”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 378-388.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995), “Measuring consumer-based brand equity”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 4-11.
JHTI Lee, D.H. and Park, C.W. (2007), “Conceptualization and measurement of multidimensionality of
integrated marketing communications”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47 No. 3,
3,4 pp. 222-236.
Leeman, D. and Reynolds, D. (2012), “Trust and outsourcing: do perceptions of trust influence the
retention of outsourcing providers in the hospitality industry?”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 601-608.
Lewis, R.C. and Chambers, R.E. (2000), Marketing Leadership in Hospitality: Foundations and
466 Practices, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Liao, S. and Cheng, C.C.J. (2014), “Brand equity and the exacerbating factors of product innovation
failure evaluations: a communication effect perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67,
pp. 2919-2925.
Liu, M.T., Wong, I.A., Tseng, T.H., Chang, A.W.Y. and Phau, I. (2017), “Applying consumer-based
brand equity in luxury hotel branding”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 81, pp. 192-202.
Lo, A.S., Im, H.H., Chen, Y. and Qu, H. (2017), “Building brand relationship quality among hotel loyalty
program members”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 458-488.
Luxton, S., Reid, M. and Mavondo, F. (2017), “IMC capability: antecedents and implications for brand
performance”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 421-444.
Martin, G.S. and Brown, T.J. (1990), “In search of brand equity: the conceptualization and
measurement of the brand impression construct”, in Childers, T.L., MacKenzie, S.B., Leigh,
T.W., Skinner, D.K., Lynch, J.G. Jr., Heckler, S.E., Gatignon, H., Fisk, R. and Graham, J.
(Eds), Marketing Theory and Applications, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
pp. 431-438.
Mattila, A.S. (2006), “How affective commitment boosts guest loyalty (and promotes frequent-guest
programs)”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 174-181.
McGrath, J.M. (2005), “A pilot study testing aspects of the integrated marketing communications
concept”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 191-214.
Melewar, T.C., Foroudi, P., Gupta, S., Kitchen, P.J. and Foroudi, M.M. (2017), “Integrating identity,
strategy and communications for trust, loyalty and commitment”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 572-604.
Mikulic, J. and Prebe
zac, D. (2008), “Prioritizing improvement of service attributes using impact range-
performance analysis and impact-asymmetry analysis”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 18
No. 6, pp. 559-576.
Mikulic, J. and Ryan, C. (2018), “Reflective versus formative confusion in SEM based tourism research:
a critical comment”, Tourism Management, Vol. 68, pp. 465-469.
Mikulic, J., Kre
sic, D. and Ko
zic, I. (2015), “Critical factors of the maritime yachting tourism experience:
an impact-asymmetry analysis of principal components”, Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. S30-S41.
Mikulic, J. (2018), “Towards an end of measurement misspecification in tourism research: grammar of
theoretical constructs, focus of thought and mind traps”, Tourism Management, Vol. 68,
pp. 444-449.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
nero, M. (2010), “IMC: a methodology for
Navarro Bailon, M.A., Delgado Ballester, E. and Sicilia Pi~
designing consistent messages”, Universia Business Review, No. 26, pp. 150-167.
Nowak, G. and Phelps, J. (1994), “Conceptualizing the integrated marketing communications
phenomenon: an examination of its impact on advertising and its implications for
advertising research”, The Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 49-66.
Oh, H. and Hsu, C.H.C. (2014), “Assessing equivalence of hotel brand equity measures in cross-cultural Building brand
contexts”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 36, pp. 156-166.
equity in
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2006), “Consumer-based brand equity and country-of-
origin relationships”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 5/6, pp. 696-717.
luxury hotels
Pauwels, K., Demirci, C., Yildirim, G. and Srinivisan, S. (2016), “The impact of brand familiarity on
online and offline media synergy”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 739-753.
467
Peng, N. and Chen, A. (2019), “Examining consumers’ luxury hotel stay repurchase intentions-
incorporating a luxury hotel brand attachment variable into a luxury consumption value
model”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 1348-1366.
Phelps, J. and Johnson, E. (1996), “Entering the quagmire: examining the “meaning” of integrated
marketing communications”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 159-172.
Reid, M. (2005), “Performance auditing of integrated marketing communications (IMC) actions and
outcomes”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 41-54.
Reid, M., Luxton, S. and Mavondo, F. (2005), “The relationship between integrated marketing
communication, market orientation, and brand orientation”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34
No. 4, pp. 11-23.
Schultz, D.E. (2006), “Don Schultz describes new integration”, available at: http://www.imediaconnection.
com (accessed 17 May 2014).

c, M., Gil-Saura, I. and Ruiz-Molina, M.E. (2014), “How can integrated marketing communications
Seri
and advanced technology influence the creation of customer-based brand equity? Evidence
from the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 39
No. May, pp. 144-156.

c, M., Gil-Saura, I. and Ozretic-Do
sen, Ð. (2015), “Insights on integrated marketing
Seri
communications: implementation and impact in hotel companies”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 958-979.

c, M., Gil-Saura, I. and Garbin Prani
cevic, D. (2016), “Latest technology and communication
Seri
consistency in hospitality: a comparison between two Mediterranean countries”, Economic
Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1091-1108.

c, M., Mikulic, J. and Gil-Saura, I. (2018), “Exploring relationships between customer-based brand
Seri
equity and its drivers and consequences in the hotel context. An impact-asymmetry
assessment”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 21 No. 14, pp. 1621-1643.
Shi, W., Tang, L., Zhang, X., Gao, Y. and Yameng, Z. (2016), “How does word of mouth affect
customer satisfaction?”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 393-403.
Shin, W., Pang, A. and Kim, H.J. (2015), “Building relationships through integrated online media:
global organizations’ use of brand web sites, Facebook, and Twitter”, Journal of Business and
Technical Communication, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 184-220.
So, K.K.G. and King, C. (2010), “When experience matters: building and measuring hotel brand equity.
The customers’ perspective”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 589-608.
Walls, A., Okumus, F., Wang, R.Y. and Kwun, D.J.W. (2011), “Understanding the consumer experience:
an exploratory study of luxury hotels”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 166-197.
Xie, L., Li, Y., Chen, S.H. and Huan, T.C. (2016), “Triad theory of hotel managerial leadership, employee
brand-building behavior, and guest images of luxury-hotel brands”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 1826-1847.
JHTI Zineldin, M. and Jonsson, P. (2000), “An examination of the main factors affecting trust and
commitment in supplier–dealer relationships: an empirical study of the Swedish wood
3,4 industry”, TQM Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 245-267.

Corresponding author

c can be contacted at: maja.seric@uv.es
Maja Seri
468

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com