MANAGEMENT: SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

The Magical World of Disney: building relationships with clients from the brand personality

O Mundo Mágico da Disney: construindo relacionamentos com clientes a partir da personalidade de marca

Gabriela Nobre Dias*, Gisela Demo**, Fernanda Scussel***, Eluiza Alberto de Morais Watanabe****

* Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Economia, Administração, Contabilidade e Atuária,Av. Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 908 - Butantã, CEP: 05508-010 São Paulo - SPBrasil . , gabinobre0@gmail.com

** Universidade de Brasília, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Prédio da FACE, sala AT 111/4, Asa Norte, Brasília-DF, Brasil, CEP: 70.910-900, giselademo@gmail.com

*** Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Universitário - Trindade Florianópolis - Santa Catarina - Brasil, CEP 88040-900, fbcardoso@gmail.com

**** Universidade de Brasília, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Prédio da FACE, sala BT 13/7, Asa Norte, Brasília-DF, Brasil, CEP: 70.910-900, eluizaw@gmail.com

---

 

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between brand personality and customer relationship perception in the Tourism and Hospitality Industry. We performed a survey with 283 Brazilian visitors of Disney parks, using Structural Equation Modeling. Brand personality, the second-order factor, was formed by first-order factors (Credibility, Joy, Sophistication, Audacity and Sensitivity), all of them with positive effects on customer relationship perception. The prediction was 29%, considered a great effect. Hence, we confirm the relation between brand personality and relationship perception and the Credibility dimension as the main driver of long-term relationships in the T&H sector. Our discussion contributes to the body of knowledge of relationship marketing and branding, especially in identifying the nature of the relationship between these marketing variables. Research on brand management can benefit from our results since they put light into the interaction between brand and customers, and the main aspects sustaining these interactions.

Keywords: Brand personality, relationship marketing, Disney.

---

 

RESUMO

O propósito deste artigo é avaliar a relação entre personalidade de marca e percepção de relacionamento do consumidor na indústria de Turismo e Hospitalidade. Realizou-se uma survey com 283 visitantes brasileiros dos parques da Disney, usando a técnica de modelagem por equações estruturais. A personalidade de marca, o fator de segunda ordem, foi formada pelos fatores de primeira ordem (Credibilidade, Alegria, Sofisticação, Audácia e Sensibilidade), todos com efeitos positivos na percepção de relacionamento do consumidor. A predição foi de 29%, considerada um grande efeito. Assim, confirmou-se a relação entre personalidade de marca e percepção de relacionamento, sendo a dimensão Credibilidade o principal preditor de relacionamentos duradouros no setor de T&H. A discussão contribui com a linha de conhecimento do marketing de relacionamento e branding, especialmente na identificação da natureza da relação entre essas variáveis. A pesquisa em gerenciamento de marca pode beneficiar destes resultados, uma vez que eles destacam as interações entre marcas e consumidores e os principais aspectos que sustentam tais interações.

Palavras-chave: Personalidade de marca, marketing de relacionamento, Disney.

---

 

1. Introduction

Tourism and hospitality (T&H) is a dynamic and complex industry formed by bars, restaurants, hotels, cruise ships, casinos, theme parks, and other attractions in order to amuse consumers in their holiday time, with major importance in the global economy (Ritzer, 1999). However, marketing in T&H has become a challenge due to the complexity of the value chain, the increasing competition and the imperative of selling extraordinary experiences (Williams, 2006; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011).

In this context, the comprehension of consumers’ cognitive and affective needs is key to an integrated hospitality experience, which covers service encounters and the intangible aspects of the interaction between firms and consumers (Gursoy, 2018). This scenario demands the development of new strategies capable of affecting consumers’ perceptions. In this sense, destination branding arises as an important source of competitive advantage, enabling the development of strong brands (Frías-Jamilena, Sabiote-Ortiz, Martín-Santana & Beerli-Palacio, 2018), the context in which brand personality is a central element (Murphy, Moscardo, & Benckendorff, 2007).

Brand personality is the set of human characteristics associated with a brand (Aaker, 1997), a useful concept to measure the emotional bond between customers and brands (Fournier, 1998). With this concept, consumers identify and describe brands the same way they would form their impression about a person (Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Guido, 1998). In T&H, brand personality has proved to be useful to build destination brands, contributing to better understandings of consumers’ perceptions, which will generate better strategies (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Usakli & Baloglu, 2011). From this, we understand destination branding is part of a process that combines several marketing activities to create value for consumers and firms (Frías-Jamilen et al., 2018).

These arguments have led us to relationship marketing, a managerial philosophy based on the engagement between firms and consumers through a series of interactions (Scussel, Petroll, Semprebom, & Rocha, 2017). The objective of relationship marketing is to increase firm knowledge about consumers in order to formulate strategies, allocate resources and develop processes and operational routines to guide business focus (Grönroos, 2017).

However, there is no relationship if the consumer does not recognize it, which means customers must acknowledge they share a relationship with a company or a brand in order to seize the relational benefits from this interaction (Grönroos, 2009). Such an argument leads us to customer relationship perception, a concept that reveals the most important relational aspects for customers to build long-term relationships with companies or brands (Demo & Rozzett, 2013). This construct comprises technical, functional and behavioral aspects, covering all encounters between firms and their customers (Grönroos, 2017).

According to Brito (2010), consumers tend to relate to brands with which they feel more affinity in terms of personality. Moreover, Fournier (1998) argues that one way to legitimize brands as a consumer partner is through humanizing brands, as consumers relate to brands based on the compatibility between them. Based on this, we understand there is a connection between brand personality and customer relationship perception. Nonetheless, context matters: a relationship is the series of interconnected interactions between customers and firms, demanding a deep analysis of the context of the relationship, the involved actors and the particularities of these interactions (Fournier, 1998). Considering the importance of T&H industry, we wonder: how do brand personality and customer relationship perception relate to the tourism and hospitality industry?

To address such a question, we propose a study with theme parks, a vital sector in T&H, but still an under-researched topic in its scientific production. Theme parks are important drivers of tourist trips, providing fun experiences and enjoyable vacations (Swarbrooke & Horner, 2002). People visit theme parks to have exciting experiences, to escape routine and to connect with an imaginary world and joyful moments (Ashton, 2009). Walt Disney is an important case in this sector. The Disney brand leads the ranking of the most visited theme park in the world (Theme Entertainment Association, 2017), with a return rate of over 80%, based on the competence in evaluating customers’ satisfaction, obtaining data quickly and implementing actions that are able to conquer and involve customers (Connellan, 2010).

In consideration of the above, we build our hypothesis based on the idea that when Disney’s visitors perceive the intangible aspects of the Disney brand, such as brand personality, they feel more connected with the brand and tend to build a relationship with it. Following these lines, the main purpose of this article is to analyze the relation between brand personality and customer relationship perception in the context of theme parks. Our major contribution is to put light into the drivers of long-term relationships in the tourism and hospitality industry through the development of destination branding.

2. Theoretical framework

2.1 Brand Personality

Brand personality is the set of human characteristics associated with a brand (Aaker, 1997). This concept enables brands to connect with customers through their feelings about the brand, forming a starting point for developing relationships between consumers and their brands (Aaker, 1997; Fournier, 1998). In this sense, brand personality has several consequences for relational marketing, such as perceived brand quality, attitude towards a brand, behavioral intentions, brand connection, brand commitment and brand trust (Malik & Naeem, 2012).

Brand personality has its roots in psychology, the reason why there are two research perspectives for the construct. First, there is a psychological research tradition that emphasizes the congruence between customer personality and brand personality (Parker, 2009; Lee, 2009; Lee, Back, & Kim, 2009; Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011; Lima & Baptista, 2013). The second stream of research lies on a market basis, exploring the impact of brand personality on consumer behavior. The present paper follows the second research tradition.

In the market perspective, empirical evidence relates brand personality to strategy formulation (Nobre, Becker, & Brito, 2010; Valette-Forence, Guizani, & Merunka, 2011; Malar, Nyffenegger, Krohmer, & Hoyer, 2012; Mathur, Jain, & Maheswaran, 2012, Naresh, 2012); brand positioning strategies (Kim & Sung, 2013) and persuasion in advertising (Park & John, 2012; Arsena, Silvera, & Pandelaere, 2014). We have also identified relational studies between brand personality and brand loyalty (Kim, Magnini, & Singal, 2011; Lee & Back, 2010), brand commitment (Louis & Lombart, 2010), sensorial marketing (Möller & Herm, 2013) and cultural perspectives (De Moya & Jain, 2013; Fetscherin & Toncar, 2010).

In T&H research, brand personality has proved to be a relevant construct in tourist decision-making processes (Kaplan, Yurt, Guneri, & Kurtulus, 2010; Murphy et al., 2007). Brand personality contributes to build customer perception about countries (Matzler, Strobl, Stokburger-Sauer, Bobovnicky, & Bauer, 2016) and to form consumer attitudes and intentions (Souiden, Ladhari, & Chiadmi, 2017). Brand personality also affects tourist satisfaction, tourist identification with the destination, positive word-of-mouth and revisit intention (Hultman, Skarmeas, Oghazi, & Beheshti, 2015). Lastly, brand personality is associated with customer experience in T&H (Kim & Stepchenkova, 2017).

The body of evidence on brand personality confirms its relevance as an antecedent of several marketing variables, bringing important insights to business development. This means brands are no longer a passive object in marketing transactions, but an active element able to contribute to the generation of consumer relationships (Fournier, 1998). When consumers perceive characters’ traits in brands, they are more likely to relate to the brands they feel closer to (Brito, 2010). Therefore, brand personality becomes an important driver of customer and brand relationship. However, this relation remains unexplored, especially in T&H studies.

There is a consensus in the literature that Jennifer Aaker, in 1997, has set a milestone in brand personality research with the scale Dimensions of Brand Personality (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003; Avis, Aitken, & Ferguson, 2012; Muniz & Marchetti, 2012; Scussel & Demo, 2016). The measurement instrument for the brand personality proposed by Aaker (1997) identified five dimensions: Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness.

Aaker (1997) was the one to mention that the applicability of the scale in different contexts requires instrument validation, which was followed by several works to validate the brand personality scale in different cultures (Aaker; Benet-Martinez, & Garolera, 2001; Chan, Saunders, Taulor, & Souchon, 2003; Supphellen & Gronhaug, 2003; Helgeson & Supphellen, 2004; Bosnjak, Bochmann, & Hufschmidt, 2007; Milas & Mlacic, 2007; Muniz & Marchetti, 2012). The brand personality scale was also adapted to specific market sectors (Kaplan et al., 2010; Kim, Baek, & Martin, 2010; Herbst & Merz, 2011; Valette-Florence & Barnier, 2013; Leonard & Katsanis, 2013; Mendez, Murphy, & Papadopoulos, 2013; Sung et al., 2015).

The validation of the scale in different contexts confirms its internal structure, reinforcing its ability to measure brand personality (Scussel & Demo, 2016). Muniz and Marchetti (2012) validated the brand personality scale for Brazilian customers, revealing the dimensions of Credibility, Joy, Audacity, Sophistication, and Sensibility. As stated by Scussel and Demo (2016), the work of Muniz and Marchetti (2012) sets a milestone in brand personality research in Brazil. The reliable psychometric indexes of the Brazilian instrument enable relational studies with other marketing variables. For this reason, it was the chosen scale to measure brand personality in this paper.

2.2 Customer Relationship Perception

According to Storbacka and Lehtinen (2001), the main challenge of relationship marketing is not to get a larger share of customers’ wallet, but to win a larger share of their hearts and minds. Although relationship marketing is not new content in marketing literature, the challenge remains: developing, maintaining and enhancing relationships with customers demands readiness to interact and meaningful service provision (Grönroos, 2017).

In the Nordic School approach, relationship marketing studies embrace service as a starting point to establish and enhance relationships with customers, expanding the borders of conventional marketing - from a process limited to the marketing department, relationship marketing becomes a matter of the firm as a whole (Grönroos, 2009; 2015; 2017). This orientation is in line with the research on T&H since it explores the interactions between customers and firms in order to build marketing knowledge (Dolnicar & Ring, 2014).

The T&H industry has adopted several relational practices to achieve competitive advantages in the context of global competition, new destinations and, the expansion of tourist options (Fyall, Callod, & Edwards, 2003). Relationship marketing has proved to be an appropriate approach in this sector since the adoption of relational strategies has a major effect on customer retention, brand commitment, and service management, which will improve business performance (Sin et al., 2006).

Recently, Grönroos (2017) proposed a relationship marketing theoretical model based on three processes: (i) customer value creation, which covers every encounter between firm and customer that will lead to relational benefits; (ii) interaction process, comprehending actions and interactions that sustain and enhance relationships; and (iii) communication process, related to marketing communication. As explained by Scussel et al. (2017), firms must attract consumers’ attention and give them reasons to be loyal through relational benefits. Nevertheless, costumers need to recognize this relationship first (Grönroos, 2009; 2017).

Following these lines, consumer relationship perception becomes a vital construct in the relational context (Wong & Sohal, 2002; Souza Neto & Mello, 2009; Grönroos, 2009). Customer relationship perception represents the most relevant aspects consumers consider to start and maintain a relationship with a brand or a company (Demo & Rozzett, 2013). Moreover, customer relationship perception is connected to consumer preference and loyalty (Scussel & Demo, 2019). When a consumer sees himself as part of a relationship with a company or a brand from which he can benefit, the consumer is more likely to choose its products and services (Lafferty, Goldsmith, & Hult, 2004; Becker-Olsen, Taylor, Hill, & Yalcinkaya, 2011).

In T&H, customer perception reflects the way a visitor perceives the attributes of a destination, evaluating them as positive or negative in order to shape the value of the experience (Baloglu & McClearly, 1999). Customers want more than a trip: they are interested in the subjectivity of the destination and significant experiences (Oh, Fiore, & Jeoung, 2007). Hence, customer satisfaction is not enough: T&H firms need to fulfill customers with an experience, creating a willingness to revisit and to talk to other people about it, which take us back to the relational context and the importance of building relationship perception (Silva & Marques Junior, 2017).

Although customer relationship perception is a construct underexplored in T&H scientific research, consumers’ positive perceptions are on the top of the destination marketing agenda (Artigas, Vilches, & Yrigoyen, 2015). For this reason, we believe the comprehension of customer relationship perception in T&H will help firms to create differentiation strategies and face competition.

Rozzett and Demo (2010a; 2010b) developed and validated an instrument to measure customer relationship perception, creating a scale to evaluate the way customers perceive their relationships with firms, with good psychometric indices. Besides, the applicability of the scale in different contexts in recent years confirm its internal structure (Demo, Batelli, & Albuquere, 2015; Demo & Pessoa, 2015; Demo, Fogaça; & Cardoso, 2017; Demo & Martins, 2017; Demo et al., 2018; Lopes & Demo, 2012; Scussel & Demo, 2016; Scussel & Demo, 2019; Vasconcelos & Demo; 2012).

Among the above-mention researches, the work of Vasconcelos and Demo (2012) reports the validation of the Customer Relationship Perception scale for theme parks, with good psychometric rates, which is the chosen instrument to measure customer relationship perception with the Disney brand.jj

Regarding the relation between the variables brand personality and customer relationship perception, Fournier (1998) was the one to signalize that when consumers see brands as a person, they tend to relate with them the same way they would relate to a person. Similarly, when Brito (2010) proposes a relational approach to brand value, the author reinforces that clients are more likely to relate with brands they feel closer to in terms of personality. Empirically, the relation between brand personality and customer relationship perception is present only in a few studies in the current literature, but all of them confirm the positive relation between the variables.

Scussel and Demo (2019) studied the influence of brand personality on the relationship perception in the context of the luxury market, confirming a prediction relation between these constructs. Credibility and sophistication were the most important drivers of customer relationship perception, revealing that the more reliable and sophisticated customers perceive a luxury brand, the more likely they are to relate with the brand. Delmondez, Demo and Scussel (2017), in an investigation on fast-food brands, discovered that credibility and audacity are predictors of loyalty, a building block of the relationship between brands and clients. In the digital environment, credibility, audacity and joy proved to be brand personalities that connect users to social media (Demo et al., 2018). In the financial market, brand personality, especially credibility dimension, is an important resource to banks build their reputation in the market, conducting long-term and lucrative relationships with customers (Shahin, Gharibpoor, Teymouri & Iraj, 2013).

3. Method

To analyze the relation between brand personality and customer relationship perception with the Disney brand, we performed a survey with Brazilian tourists who visited Disney’s theme parks. We used (i) the brand personality scale validated by Muniz and Machetti (2012), with 28 items, and (ii) the customer relationship perception validated by Vasconcelos and Demo (2012), a specific instrument for theme parks, with 25 items.

We used a non-probabilistic sample by convenience. Since the number of visitors of the Disney’s parks tends to an incalculable number, literature admits a non-probabilistic sample (Cochran, 1977). The questionnaire was made available online by the platform Typeform. The link for the questionnaire was shared online by email and social media such as Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp, resorting to the snowball sampling procedure. This technique enables people to indicate other people with a similar profile to join the sample, creating a chain of references until the ideal sample size is reached (Salganik & Heckathorn, 2004). To perform structural equation modeling (SEM), Hair et al. (2009) recommend a sample of 200 subjects or more. We have reached 402 responses.

Data was transferred to SPSS software (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and submitted to a treatment phase. Following Tabachnick and Fidell’s (2013) instructions, we identified 72 incomplete questionnaires and 47 outliers, resulting in a final sample of 283 valid questionnaires. Mainly female subjects, between 18 and 28 years old, with higher education, who visited Disneyland between two and five times last decade composed sample.

We used Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to analyze the relationship between variables, considering its capacity to analyze several equations at the same time (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2009). Initially, we performed Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) given its power to examine interrelation patterns between latent variables. According to Byrne (2016), CFA does not predict direct relations between variables, and it is recommended to verify convergent validity (if the items from each construct are coherent between them) and discriminant validity (if the variables from the model measure different constructs between them). Next, we used path analysis to analyze the proposed relations.

About multicollinearity and singularity analysis, no problems were detected regarding sample adequacy, as tolerance values were higher than 0.1 and the values ​​related to inflation of variance factor were lower than 10 (Myers, 1990). Normal probability graphs and residue graphs were generated to establish distribution normality, linearity and homoscedasticity of the data. All assumptions have been reached.

As we used only one data source, this study is subject to the common-method variance problems. Based on this, we performed Confirmatory Factor Analysis using one-factor structural equations for brand personality, which presented a previous multifactorial structure, as recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff (2003). According to the authors, if the one-factor model presents a good fit, there is a common-method variance. Nevertheless, the adjustment of the one-factor model was not acceptable (NFI = 0.52; CFI = 0.61; PCFI = 0.58). Thus, we conclude the common-method variance alone does not explain the results.

4. Results

As a first step in performing Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), the latent variables from brand personality and customer relationship perception were submitted to CFA, using the maximum likelihood method, as recommended by Brown (2014). For this, we used a second-order CFA. Brand personality was the second-order factor, and the first-order factors were Credibility, Joy, Sophistication, Audacity and Sensitivity. Brand personality is composed of 28 observed variables, distributed in five latent variables. On the other hand, customer relationship perception is formed by 25 observed variables. All of them were significant, considering p-value <0,01 and critical ratio (C.R.) over |1,96|. Table 1 shows the results.

 

(clique para ampliar ! click to enlarge)

 

In order to identify any problems in the model, we analyzed the modification indices (I. M.). The M.I. between items e41 and e42, e37 and e38, e27 and e28, e02 and e03, and e22 and e23 were, respectively, 95.43, 83.01, 73.41, 49.54 and 38.57, all high values. For this reason, we inserted a double arrow between these items to indicate the correlation between them, as Brown (2014) recommends.

Regarding the reference values for the model´s fit indices, we followed Marôco´s (2010) recommendation. The ratio between chi-square and degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF) should be ]1; 2] to a good fit, ]2;5] to a reasonable fit and a value lower than 5 means a poor fit. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ranges from zero to 1, and a value lower than 0.8 means a poor fit, [0.8; 0.9[ is a reasonable fit, [0.9; 0.95[ is a good fit and equal or over 0.95 is considered a very good fit. The parsimony fit index Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) indicates a good adjustment when its value is ]0.05; 0.10] and the Parsimony Comparative Fit Index (PCFI) must be [0.6; 0.8[ for a good fit (Marôco, 2010).

From Table 1, we observe the fit indices of the model were CMIN/DF=2.22; CFI=0.80; PCFI=0.75; RMSEA=0.06. These values represent, according to CMIM/DF and CFI, a reasonable fit adjustment. On the other side, the values for PCFI and RMSEA indicate a good fit. For this reason, we suggest this instrument as a suitable object for further investigation, demanding new validations to improve overall fit rates.

Next, we analyzed convergent and discriminant validity. Regarding convergent validity, Table 1 shows most items have a standardized estimative over 0.50, as recommended by Hair et al. (2009). Additionally, Jöreskog’s rho was higher than 0.7 for all dimensions (Brand Personality= 0.81; Credibility=0.86; Joy=0.88; Sophistication=0.92; Audacity=0.76; Sensitivity=0.80; Customer Relationship Perception=0.91). Therefore, convergent validity was confirmed.

Concerning discriminant validity, the square root of the extracted variance must be greater than the correlations between dimensions (Hair et al., 2009). Table 2 shows that the discriminant validity of almost five dimensions of Brand Personality was confirmed. The correlation between Sophistication and Sensitivity (0.75) is higher than the Sensitivity square root of AVE (0.71). The difference is small, and we decided to proceed with the analyses.

 

(clique para ampliar ! click to enlarge)

 

After the confirmation of the measurement model, we performed a path analysis to evaluate the relationship between brand personality and customer relationship perception. The hypothesis of this study consists in its main objective: brand personality affects customer relationship perception with the Disney brand. To perform the path analysis, we considered Customer Relationship Perception as the dependent variable and Brand Personality as the independent variable. Table 3 shows the results.

 

(clique para ampliar ! click to enlarge)

 

As the main result, we confirm Brand personality (β=0.54) has a positive association with customer relationship perception (p-value<0.01; C.R.>|1.96|). Figure 1 illustrates these findings.

 

 

The R² was 29%, indicating that brand personality affects 29% of the variability of customer relationship perception. The fit indices were: CMIN/DF=2.29; CFI=0.80; PCFI=0.75; RMSEA=0.06). Similarly to the CFA, the values for CMIM/DF and CFI reveal a reasonable-fitting model. However, the values for PCFI and RMSEA point out a good fit, according to Marôco (2010), confirming the validation of the proposed research model.

5. Discussion

The results from the CFA confirmed the structures proposed by Muniz and Marchetti (2012) and by Vasconcelos and Demo (2012). In the following, the structural equation modeling indicated brand personality significantly affects customer relationship perception (R²=29%), validating the proposed model for this study.

The R² highlights the proportion of the dependent variable’ variance around its mean, which is explained by the independent variables (Hair et al., 2009). In agreement with Cohen (1992), a 2% coefficient of determination (R²) reflects a small effect; above 13% is medium effect; and 26% or higher shows a great effect. In this study, the independent variable (brand personality) contributes 29% to the dependent variable (customer relationship perception). Hence, the model reaches a great effect, explaining a third of the dependent variable’s variance.

Brand credibility is affected by the image consumers have about the brand. As stated by Biel (1993), company image is a key element in brand image construction. Brands emit signs that create customer perception, which will foster brand image (Biel, 1993; Kapferer, 2008; Keller, 2009). Disney brand, the tenth (10th) most valuable brand in the world (Interbrand, 2019), was created in 1923 (Davis, 2007). This can be a plausible way of attesting brand credibility, a dimension of brand personality.

About the dimensions of brand personality, literature affirms consumer decision is led by positive market evaluations of the brand, which demonstrated brand credibility. According to Magids, Zorfas, and Leemon (2015), reliable brands are a building block in customer evaluation, a bond based on trust that originates positive attitudes and behaviors towards the company. For these scholars, the Disney brand carries this ability in its DNA. They also confirm that the relationship between consumers and a brand depends on the emotional connection between them. In addition, consumers’ decision for reliable brands is motivated by risk decrease (Fennell, 1978). About this, Disney has cultivated a brand that delivers high levels of customer service, becoming a reference in the entertainment industry (Brockus, 2004). Besides, Disney is active on social marketing, promoting the brand social responsibility through partnerships with non-governmental organizations, creating a positive and involving brand image (Robbins & Polite, 214).

Similarly, Joy is also associated with the essence of the Disney brand, which is reinforced by the company mission - entertain, inform and inspire people (Connellan, 2010; Ritzer, 1999). The fact consumers see the Disney brand as joyful is a consequence of the implementation of the company mission, translating the values of its organizational culture. The company pays special attention to details, so the spectacle happens in the best possible way. One example of this is the 14-carat gold paint used on carousels (Connellan, 2010), allowing the brand to be identified as sophisticated, chic and elegant as well.

Furthermore, a brand recognized as sensible share characteristics of being enchanting and unforgettable (Muniz & Marchetti, 2012). The authors affirm that sensitive brand concerns about customers, establishing and cultivating emotional bonds with them. This argument finds resonance with the Disney brand, since the company vision consists of creating a world where all people feel happy like a child (Nader, 2014).

Additionally, Audacity is a crucial element to establish affective and emotional bonds with clients. Audacity is translated by the way customers perceive a brand as modern, original and authentic (Muniz & Marchetti, 2012). In this perspective, the main purpose of the Disney brand is to transform people’s imaginary, which demands art and science (Rincke, 1998). To Lipp (2014), science in theme parks is translated by the technology employed in attractions and the resources integrated to build stores, restaurants, and galleries, creating a joyful ambiance. As stated in Robbins and Polite (2014), Disney operates as a cultural machine, given its ability to create new products at the same time the brand keeps traditional products lucrative, building a solid consumer base spanning different generations.

In this context, Audacity is associated with innovation. The brand resorts to digital technology to create unique experiences, increase operational efficiency, improve communication channels with customers and personalize its products (Capgemini, 2014). These arguments reveal the Audacity traits of the Disney brand. Besides, although Disney is a great example of the American culture, it has an important influence in the global consumption society, making people live the American entertainment in the parks, taking this culture overseas (Robbins & Polite, 2014). According to Bryman (2004), the Disneyzation phenomenon characterizes the expansion of the Disney brand all over the world through the appeal of products and services, the management style and the constant development of unique experiences. In 1960, Disney created the Disney University with the mission to train employees in Walt Disney’s style, promoting the focus on consumer satisfaction and enchantment (Santos & Barbosa, 2016). The main purpose of Disney University is to build a strong and differentiated asset through people management, enabling a service of excellence, which demands constant innovation (Lipp, 2014).

In summary, according to Robbins and Polite (2014), Disney prints its philosophy, beliefs, and values in every aspect of the parks. Similarly, James (2013) explains that Disney overcomes the experiences offered by competitors at all points of interaction with visitors, mainly due to the emotional connection between consumer and brand, resulting in long-term relationships. Moreover, the Disney brand’s focus is to create timeless entertainment for families and to maintain the fantasy that has made its parks so popular (Winsor, 2015). Indeed, the magical moments experienced in Disney’s parks help to build the relationship between the Disney brand and its visitors (Jones, 2013).

Answering the research question of this paper, findings confirm there is a prediction relation between brand personality and customer relationship perception in the T&H industry. We highlight the importance of Credibility, Sophistication, Sensitivity, Audacity, and Joy in building the brand personality construct, as discussed above since they represent key aspects to the development of long-term relationships with Disney theme parks. Considering that 90% of Disney’s guests return to new visits, revealing a high index of behavioral loyalty, the brand positioning used by the brand to build relationships has proved to be effective.

Moreover, Disney’s brand positioning is consistent with the experiences they propose to customers, creating a reliable brand and a business model in T&H industry, successful in customer loyalty. Considering the complexity of T&H sector and its competitiveness, the combination of emotional aspects (brand personality) and relational elements (customer relationship management), not only satisfy consumers’ needs and guarantees organizational performance, but also configures a powerful positioning strategy.

Reliable brands develop relationships with customers because they are consistent, respectable and successful (Muniz & Marchetti, 2012). Besides, reliability guides consumers’ preference, since they represent lower risks (Fennell, 1978). Furthermore, the basis of long-term relationships is the meaning of a relationship to customers, which is established by customer experience (Fournier, 1998). In the case of the Disney brand, customer experience is the company’s main purpose and the reason why it innovates constantly, delivering a consistent message about its values and beliefs. In other words, customer loyalty will be a consequence of special and unique experiences to the public (Demo, 2014).

6. Conclusion

The main objective of this paper was to evaluate the relationship between brand personality and customer relationship perception in the context of the travel and hospitality industry. We conducted a study to understand this relation with the theme parks under the Disney brand, confirming that brand personality indeed predicts customer relationship perception, underlining the effect of Credibility, Sensitivity, Audacity, Sophistication, and Joy.

Our discussion contributes to the body of knowledge of relationship marketing, especially in identifying the antecedents of this construct and the nature of the relation between marketing variables. There is also a contribution to branding literature. Research on brand management and brand experience can benefit from our results since they put light into the interaction between brand and customers and the main aspects sustaining these interactions.

As managerial implications, the findings may help Disney’s managers as a diagnosis of the brand’s relationship with Brazilian customers, guiding product development and service improvement. The focus on entertainment must be associated with joyful experiences, creative offers, and innovative attractions, strengthening the brand audacious personality. Likewise, management practices must invoke brand credibility, emphasizing responsibility, consistency, and trust. Other practitioners in theme parks and T&H industry can use this knowledge to study consumer behavior and, from this, formulate brand and relational strategies to promote customer retention and better organizational results.

Regarding limitations, we point out the transversal character of the research and the fact that data collection is statistically synthesized, which contrasts with an attempt of generalizing the results. Moreover, the quantitative nature used in the study does not allow a full understanding of the phenomenon. Therefore, we suggest longitudinal and multi-method studies in future investigations as a way to provide support for our interpretation. Thus, the results disclosed in this paper are more indicative rather than conclusive. The last limitation concerns the values of the AVE, which are lower than literature’ recommendation. Based on this, we suggest further validations of the scales used in this study - customer relationship perception and brand personality - in other contexts.

Notwithstanding the limitations, the main purpose of the paper was reached, confirming the influence of brand personality on customer relationship perception in the Tourism and Hospitality industry. These findings not only contribute to the development of strategies of destination branding, tourism attractions and service management, also contributing to the growth of the body of knowledge of relationship marketing and branding, especially in identifying the nature of the relationship between these marketing variables. Research on brand management can benefit from our results since they put light into the interaction between brand and customers, and the main aspects sustaining these interactions.

 

REFERENCES

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 347-356, https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379703400304        [ Links ]

Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martinez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 492.         [ Links ]

Artigas, E. M., Vilches-Montero, S., & Yrigoyen, C. C. (2015). Antecedents of tourism destination reputation: The mediating role of familiarity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 26, 147-152.         [ Links ]

Avis, M., Aitken, R., & Ferguson, S. (2012). Brand relationship and personality theory: metaphor or consumer perceptual reality? Marketing Theory, 12(3), 311-331.         [ Links ]

Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J. N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality? Journal of Brand Management, 11(2), 143-155.         [ Links ]

Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868-897.         [ Links ]

Becker-Olsen, K. L., Taylor, C. R., Hill, R. P., & Yalcinkaya, G. (2011). A cross-cultural examination of corporate social responsibility marketing communications in Mexico and the United States: Strategies for global brands. Journal of International Marketing, 19(2), 30-44.         [ Links ]

Biel, A. L. (1993). Converting image into equity. Brand equity and advertising: Advertising’s role in building strong brands, 67-82.         [ Links ]

Bosnjak, M., Bochmann, V., & Hufschmidt, T. (2007). Dimensions of brand personality attributions: a person-centric aproach in the German cultural context. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 35(3), 303-316.         [ Links ]

Branaghan, R. J., & Hildebrand, E. A. (2011). Brand personality, self-congruity, and preference: A knowledge structures approach. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(5), 304-312.         [ Links ]

Brito, C. (2010). Uma abordagem relacional ao valor da marca. Revista de Gestão dos Países de Língua Portuguesa, 9(1-2), 49-63.         [ Links ]

Brockus, S. (2004). Where magic lives: Disney's cultivation, co-creation, and control of America's cultural objects. Popular Communication, 2(4), 191-211.         [ Links ]

Brown, T. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Publications.         [ Links ]

Bryman, A. (1999). The Disneyization of society. The Sociological Review, 47(1), 25-47.         [ Links ]

Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.         [ Links ]

Chan, P. Y., Saunders, J., Taylor, G., & Souchon, A. (2003). Brand Personality Perceptionbregional Or Country Specific? ACR European Advances.         [ Links ]

Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.         [ Links ]

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155.         [ Links ]

Connellan, T. (2010). Nos bastidores da Disney. São Paulo: Saraiva, 22, 176.         [ Links ]

Davis, A. M. (2007). Good Girls and Wicked Witches: Changing Reprentations of Women in Disney’s Feature Animation, 19372001. John Libbery Publishing.         [ Links ]

De Moya, M., & Jain, R. (2013). When tourists are your “friends”: Exploring the brand personality of Mexico and Brazil on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 39(1), 23-29.         [ Links ]

Demo, G., & Pessôa, R. (2015). CRM na administração pública: desenvolvimento e validação de uma Escala de Relacionamento com o Cidadão (ERCi). Revista de Administração Pública, 49(3), 677-697.         [ Links ]

Demo, G., & Rozzett, K. (2013). Customer relationship management scale for the business-to-consumer market: exploratory and confirmatory validation and models comparison. International Business Research, 6(11), 29.         [ Links ]

Demo, G., Batelli, L., & Albuquerque, P. (2015). Customer Relationship Management Scale for Video Games’ Players: Exploratory and Ordinal Factor Analysis. Revista Organizações em Contexto, 11(22), 285-312.         [ Links ]

Demo, G., Fogaça, N., & Cardoso, H. (2017). Desenvolvimento e validação de uma Escala de Relacionamento para Clientes de Telecom. Negócios em Projeção, 8(2), 28-49.         [ Links ]

Demo, G., Rozzett, K., Fogaça, N., & Souza, T. (2018). Development and Validation of A Customer Relationship Scale For Airline Companies. Brazilian Business Review, 15(2), 105-119.         [ Links ]

Demo, G., Silva, T. L. D., Watanabe, E., & Scussel, F. B. C. (2018). Credibility, audacity and joy: Brand personalities that connect users to social media. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 15(4).         [ Links ]

Delmondez, F., Demo, G., & Scussel, F. B. C. (2017). Você é o que você vende: A influência da personalidade de marca no relacionamento com clientes de empresas de fast-food. Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 16(4), 563-578.         [ Links ]

Dolnicar, S., & Ring, A. (2014). Tourism marketing research: Past, present and future. Annals of Tourism Research, 47, 31-47.         [ Links ]

Ekinci, Y., Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Baloglu, S. (2007). Host image and destination personality. Tourism Analysis, 12, 433-446.         [ Links ]

Fennell, G. (1978). Consumers' perceptions of the product use situation. The Journal of Marketing, 38-47.         [ Links ]

Fetscherin, M., & Toncar, M. (2010). The effects of the country of brand and the country of manufacturing of automobiles: An experimental study of consumers' brand personality perceptions. International Marketing Review, 27(2), 164-178.         [ Links ]

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-373.         [ Links ]

Frías-Jamilena, D. M., Sabiote-Ortiz, C. M., Martín-Santana, J. D., & Beerli-Palacio, A. (2018). The effect of Cultural Intelligence on consumer-based destination brand equity. Annals of Tourism Research, 72, 22-36.         [ Links ]

Fyall, A., Callod, C., & Edwards, B. (2003). Relationship marketing: The challenge for destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 644-659.         [ Links ]

Grönroos, C. (2009). Marketing as promise management: regaining customer management for marketing. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 24(5/6), 351-359.         [ Links ]

Grönroos, C. (2017). Relationship marketing readiness: theoretical background and measurement directions. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(3), 218-225.         [ Links ]

Gursoy, D. (2018). Future of hospitality marketing and management research. Tourism Management Perspectives, 25, 185-188.         [ Links ]

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Análise Multivariada de Dados. Porto Alegre: Bookman.         [ Links ]

Helgeson, J. G., & Supphellen, M. (2004). A conceptual and measurement comparison of self-congruity and brand personality: The impact of socially desirable responding. International Journal of Market Research, 46(2), 205-233.         [ Links ]

Herbst, U., & Merz, M. A. (2011). The industrial brand personality scale: Building strong business-to-business brands. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(7), 1072-1081.         [ Links ]

Hultman, M., Skarmeas, D., Oghazi, P., & Beheshti, H. M. (2015). Achieving tourist loyalty through destination personality, satisfaction, and identification. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2227-2231.         [ Links ]

Interbrand (2019). Best Global Brands. Retrieved 2 December 2019 from https://www.interbrand.com/best-brands/best-global-brands/2019/ranking/        [ Links ]

James, J. (2013). The heart makes the mouse: Disney's approach to brand loyalty. Journal of Brand Strategy, 2(1), 16-20.         [ Links ]

Jones, B. (2013). Turn on great customer service-a little Disney magic helps light the way. Electric Light & Power, 91, 38-39.         [ Links ]

Kapferer, J. (2008). The new strategic brand management: creating and sustaining brand equity long term. London: Kogan Page.         [ Links ]

Kaplan, M. D., Yurt, O., Guneri, B., & Kurtulus, K. (2010). Branding places: applying brand personality concept to cities. European Journal of Marketing, 44(9/10), 1286-1304.         [ Links ]

Keller, K. L. (2009). Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications environment. Journal of Marketing Communications, 15(2-3), 139-155.         [ Links ]

Kim, D. H., & Sung, Y. (2013). Gucci versus Old Navy: Interplay of brand personality and regulatory focus in advertising persuasion. Psychology & Marketing, 30(12), 1076-1087.         [ Links ]

Kim, D., Magnini, V. P., & Singal, M. (2011). The effects of customers’ perceptions of brand personality in casual theme restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), 448-458.         [ Links ]

Kim, J., Baek, T. H., & Martin, H. J. (2010). Dimensions of news media brand personality. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(1), 117-134.         [ Links ]

Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E., & Hult, G. T. M. (2004). The impact of the alliance on the partners: A look at cause-brand alliances. Psychology & Marketing, 21(7), 509-531.         [ Links ]

Lee, J. S., & Back, K. J. (2010). Examining antecedents and consequences of brand personality in the upper-upscale business hotel segment. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 27(2), 132-145.         [ Links ]

Lee, J. W. (2009). Relationship between consumer personality and brand personality as self-concept: From the case of Korean automobile brands. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 13(1), 25-44.         [ Links ]

Lee, Y. K., Back, K. J., & Kim, J. Y. (2009). Family restaurant brand personality and its impact on customer's emotion, satisfaction, and brand loyalty. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33(3), 305-328.         [ Links ]

Leonard, E., & Katsanis, L. P. (2013). The dimensions of prescription drug brand personality as identified by consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(7), 583-596.         [ Links ]

Lima, A. D. A., & Baptista, P. D. P. (2013). Impacto da congruência entre autoconceito e personalidade de marca na intensidade da qualidade de relacionamento e lealdade do consumidor. Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 12(1), 73-96.         [ Links ]

Lipp, D. (2014). Academia Disney: o programa de treinamento de uma das mais poderosas do mundo. São Paulo: Editora Saraiva.         [ Links ]

Lopes, C., & Demo, G. (2012). Desenvolvimento e validação das escalas de relacionamento com clientes da cerveja Skol e do guaraná Antarctica. Anais do Encontro de Marketing da ANPAD.         [ Links ]

Louis, D., & Lombart, C. (2010). Impact of brand personality on three major relational consequences (trust, attachment, and commitment to the brand). Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(2), 114-130.         [ Links ]

Magids, S., Zorfas, A., & Leemon, D. (2015). The new science of customer emotions. Harvard Business Review, 76, 66-74.         [ Links ]

Malär, L., Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H., & Hoyer, W. D. (2012). Implementing an intended brand personality: a dyadic perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(5), 728-744.         [ Links ]

Malik, E. M., & Naeem, B. (2013). Aaker’s brand personality framework: A critical commentary. World Applied Sciences Journal, 24(7), 895.         [ Links ]

Marôco, J. (2010). Análise de equações estruturais: Fundamentos teóricos, software & aplicações. Pêro Pinheiro: ReportNumber.         [ Links ]

Mathur, P., Jain, S. P., & Maheswaran, D. (2012). Consumers' implicit theories about personality influence their brand personality judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(4), 545-557.         [ Links ]

Matzler, K., Strobl, A., Stokburger-Sauer, N., Bobovnicky, A., & Bauer, F. (2016). Brand personality and culture: The role of cultural differences on the impact of brand personality perceptions on tourists' visit intentions. Tourism Management, 52, 507-520.         [ Links ]

Méndez, J. I.R., Murphy, S. A., & Papadopoulos, N. (2013). The US brand personality: A Sino perspective. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1028-1034.         [ Links ]

Milas, G., & Mlačić, B. (2007). Brand personality and human personality: Findings from ratings of familiar Croatian brands. Journal of Business Research, 60(6), 620-626.         [ Links ]

Möller, J., & Herm, S. (2013). Shaping retail brand personality perceptions by bodily experiences. Journal of Retailing, 89(4), 438-446.         [ Links ]

Muniz, K. M., & Marchetti, R. Z. (2012). Brand personality dimensions in the Brazilian context. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 9(2), 168-188.         [ Links ]

Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., & Benckendorff, P. (2007). Using brand personality to differentiate regional tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 5-14.         [ Links ]

Myers, R. H. (1990). Classical and modern regression with applications (No. 04; QA278. 2, M8 1990.).

Nader, G. (2009). Magia Do Imperio Disney. São Paulo: Editora Senac.         [ Links ]

Naresh, G. (2012). Do brand personalities make a difference to consumers? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 37, 31-37.         [ Links ]

Nobre, H. M., Becker, K., & Brito, C. (2010). Brand Relationships: A PersonalityBased Approach. Journal of Service Science and Management, 3(2), 206217.         [ Links ]

Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 119-132.         [ Links ]

Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2012). Capitalizing on brand personalities in advertising: The influence of implicit self-theories on ad appeal effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 424-432.         [ Links ]

Parker, B. T. (2009). A comparison of brand personality and brand user-imagery congruence. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(3), 175-184.         [ Links ]

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.         [ Links ]

Ritzer, G. (1999). Enchanting a disenchanted world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Robbins, M., & Polite, F. G. (2014). The most powerful mouse in the world: the globalization of the Disney brand. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 14(1), 1-11.         [ Links ]

Salganik, M and Heckathorn D. (2004). Sampling and estimation in hidden populations using respondent-driven sampling. Sociological Methodology 34, 193-239.

Santos, L. L., & Barbosa, F. K. (2016). Disney e o poder do atendimento aos clientes. UNILUS Ensino e Pesquisa, 13(30), 82-91.         [ Links ]

Scussel, F. B. C., & Demo, G. (2016). Personalidade de marca: itinerários da produção nacional e agenda de pesquisa. Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 15(3), 340-354.         [ Links ]

Scussel, F., & Demo, G. (2019). The relational aspects of luxury consumption in Brazil: the development of a Luxury Customer Relationship Perception Scale and the analysis of brand personality influence on relationship perception on luxury fashion brands. Brazilian Business Review, 16(2), 174-190.         [ Links ]

Scussel, F. B. C., Petroll, M. M., Semprebon, E., & Rocha, R. A. (2017). O que é, afinal, marketing de relacionamento? Uma proposta de conceito unificador. Revista de Ciências da Administração, 19(48), 9-23.         [ Links ]

Shahin, A., Gharibpoor, M., Teymouri, S., & Iraj, E. B. (2013). Studying the influence of e-CRM on web-based brand personality-the case of Mellat Bank. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 13(4), 453-470.         [ Links ]

Silva, F. F., & Marques Júnior, S. (2016). Fatores que afetam o encantamento do cliente do turismo de lazer a partir da experiência em parques temáticos. Turismo, Visão e Ação, 19(1), 103-127.         [ Links ]

Silva, F. R.D, & Rossi, L. A. S. (2007). Qualidade e excelência Disney: um exemplo para hotéis de todo o mundo. Iniciação Científica Cesumar, 5(1), 41-48.         [ Links ]

Souiden, N., Ladhari, R., & Chiadmi, N. E. (2017). Destination personality and destination image. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 32, 54-70.         [ Links ]

Souza Neto, A. F.D, & de Mello, S. C. B. (2009). Características dos relacionamentos estabelecidos em diferentes contextos de serviços sob a ótica do consumidor. RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas, 49(3), 309-322.         [ Links ]

Storbacka, K., & Lehtinen, J. (2001). Customer relationship management: Creating competitive advantage through win-win relationship strategies. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.         [ Links ]

Supphellen, M., & Grønhaug, K. (2003). Building foreign brand personalities in Russia: the moderating effect of consumer ethnocentrism. International Journal of Advertising, 22(2), 203-226.         [ Links ]

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson Education.         [ Links ]

Usakli, A., & Baloglu, S. (2011). Brand personality of tourist destinations: An application of selfcongruity theory. Tourism Management, 32(1), 114-117.         [ Links ]

Valette-Florence, P., Guizani, H., & Merunka, D. (2011). The impact of brand personality and sales promotions on brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 24-28.         [ Links ]

Valette-Florence, R., & De Barnier, V. (2013). Towards a micro conception of brand personality: An application for print media brands in a French context. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 897-903.         [ Links ]

Vasconcelos, H., & Demo, G. (2012). Enchant to retain: an instrumental study about the relationship between Walt Disney World Parks and its Brazilian customers. In Anais do International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. Guimarães, Portugal: ICIEOM.         [ Links ]

Williams, A. (2006). Tourism and hospitality marketing: fantasy, feeling and fun. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(6), 482-495.         [ Links ]

Wong, A., & Sohal, A. (2002). An examination of the relationship between trust, commitment and relationship quality. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 30(1), 34-50.         [ Links ]

 

Received: 31.10.2019. Revisions required: 30.11.2019. Accepted: 15.01.2020.