The destination brand perceptions and preferences ofMalaysian Muslim travelers

Abstract

Like some other Asia-Pacific destinations Korea inbound tourism focuses primarily

on Japan and Chinaas source markets. However the rapid increase of visitation by

Asian Muslim tourists in general and from Malaysia in particular is noteworthy.The

present paper presents an analysis of destination brand positioning and concludes

that although Korea is perceived more favorably than China, it lags Japan in terms of

brand image domains other than“access to Muslim culture”.The brand awareness,

association and loyalty for Korea was found to be somewhere between the

equivalents for China and Japan. Respondents perceived China as more familiar

than Korea and that Korea lies somewhere between the two other destinations for

emotion-related items. Analyses of Muslim tourists’ preferencesconcluded that

Malaysian Muslim tourists have different tour planning preferencesand gift-giving

behaviorson the basis of socio-demographic characteristics.

Keywords:Muslim, positioning, brand, competiveness,

destination; preference

1

The destination brand perceptions and preferences ofMalaysian Muslim travelers

Introduction

When viewed from the perspective of the tourism destination

life cycle theory many destinations have emerged initially,

have then developedand ultimately have declined (Agarwal,

1997; Pulina et al., 2006; Zhong et al., 2008). The incidence

of severe competition is the most likely factor to tarnish a

destination’s reputation and is, caused by the entry of new

destinations or the renovation of competitors through the

introduction of new managerial or technological applications.

It is worthwhile exploring market positioning and tourist

preferences in light of the unpredictable macro- and micro-

environments that are impacting on tourism destinations,

particularly in the case of a fast growing region such as the

2

Asia-Pacific.

One reason for identifying a destination’s positioning

and consumer preferences is to understand a set of possible

competitive advantages or disadvantages that can form a basis

for positioning. A destination that defines its exact

positioning and the attributes that are preferred by tourists

is significantly advantagedwhen introducing new products or

services, communicating with stakeholders, andmaking decisions

regardingfinancial investment or market exit. It also assists

the formulation of differentiation from competitors, and the

prediction offuturemarket situations. This study focuses on

two concepts that are closely connected with differentiation,

namely: destination positioning and tourist preferences.

Positioning involves an overall evaluation of how a

product is perceived by the relevant target market as distinct

from competitors with regard to attributes that are considered

to be important by the segment (Kotler et al., 2010). Many

previous studies have examined destination positioning

(BalogluandMcCleary, 1999; Botha et al., 1999; Chen and Uysal,

2002; Crompton et al., 1992; Dolnicar andGrabler, 2004; Kim

andAgrusa, 2005; Kimet al., 2000; Pike, 2012; Pike and Ryan,

3

2004; Qu andQu, 2011).

Image is the most popularly used measure among competing

locations that are in the pursuitof effective positioning. A

destination’s position is the consequence of a complex set of

consumer perceptions, impressions, and feelings that tourists

(as consumers)possess about the destination(s) relative to

competitors (Enright and Newton, 2004; Pike, 2012). To build

upon the existing knowledge base there is a need for further

empirical evidence around applicable positioning

typologiesthat will allow for the formulation of distinct

value propositions to destination practitioners and market

segments. Positioning researchershavde identified relative to

the integration of destination brand concepts into destination

positioning strategy (Boo et al., 2009; Cai, 2002; Im et al.,

2012; Qu et al., 2011). The current study adopts the concept

of tourism destination brand positioning typology. This then

has reference to the theoretical foundations underpinning a

grouping of domains, which are used in turn to evaluate

destination competitiveness.

Tourist preferences are the second concept considered in

this study. Researchers have already given considerable

4

attention to understanding tourist preferences. These are

central to enhancing service quality and to attracting new

tourists (Jang et al., 2004; Morgan et al., 2001). Along with

positioning strategy, addressing tourist preferences can

support the achievement of competitiveness relative to

alternative destinations. Recognizing the importance of

exploring tourist destination preferences, numerous

researchers have examined disparitieson the basis of socio-

demographic characteristics (Agrusa et al., 2011; Balogluand

Shoemaker, 2001; Kim and Prideaux, 2005), purpose of visit or

preferred activities (Choi and Tsang, 1999; Hsieh et al.,

1992; McKercher et al., 2002; Moscardo et al., 2000; Sung et

al., 2000). Tourist destination preferences vary according to

tourist motivations (Andreu et al., 2005; BalogluandShoemaker,

2001; Jang andCai, 2002; Pearce andLee, 2005;Sirakaya et al.,

2003) and cross-cultural characteristics (BaharandKozak, 2007;

Kim andAgrusa, 2005; Kim andMcKercher, 2011; Yoo et al., 2004;

You et al., 2000).

The current study has two main goals. One is to make use

of brand positioning typologies to analyze Korea’s destination

competitiveness for prospective Malaysian Muslim tourists

5

compared with Japan and China. The primary research goal is

subdivided into the following six secondary objectives: to use

the following approaches to identify the relative

competitiveness of the three destinations: 1) brand image, 2)

brand awareness, 3) brand association, 4) brand loyalty and 5)

feelings as perceived by potential Malaysian Muslim travelers.

The other is to explore various tourist preferences on the

basis of socio-demographic characteristics.

The use of such approaches provides a means of

identifying Malaysian Muslim traveler perceptions of the

strengths and weaknesses of Korea, China, and Japan. The

results should assist relevant destination stakeholders to

understand the process of establishing an optimum destination

positioning. The study will contribute to theory by measuring

destination brand positioning typologies and their application

to destinations.

Asian Inbound Tourism to Korea

The total number of Asian tourist arrivals in Korea grew

steadily from 2005 to 2012. Asian visitorscomprised about 8.2

million or 79.7% of total international visitation to Korea in

6

2012, an increase of 7.2% over the previous year (Table 1).

The top 10 source country markets in 2012 were Japan, Mainland

China (including Hong Kong), USA, Taiwan, Thailand, the

Philippines, Malaysia, Russia, Indonesia, and Singapore (Table

2 and Figure 1). There are 3.3 million tourists from Japan

(the top country in the list), corresponding to a 31.9% market

share, followed by Mainland China, with about 2.6 million

tourists(25.6% of market share).

There has also been a recent increase in inbound tourists

from other Southeast Asian countries, notably Thailand, the

Philippines, Singapore,and Indonesia. Tourism demand from

Muslim countriesto Korea has been increasing particularly

fast, including from Malaysia and Indonesia. Malaysian

visitation grew strongly between 2010 (a 41.9% increase over

the previous year) and 2011 (a 37.5% increase over the

previous year). Indonesian arrivals have also recorded

substantial increases of 17.6% in 2010 and 30.7% in 2011.

To highlight the significance of adherence to Islam in

tourism movements it is important to place Malaysia within the

wider context of Asia generally and of Southeast Asia in

particular.Malaysia formally adopted Malay as its official

7

languageand Islam as its official religionafter gaining

independence in 1957. There are three predominant ethnic

groups, namely Malay Muslims (henceforth referred to as

“Malays”), Chinese, and Indians. The Malays, Malaysia’s

largest ethnic group (about 58% of the population), are people

of Malay descent who practice Islamic and Malay traditions and

speak Malay (Malaysia Tourism Authority, 2011).

There are a variety of reasons for treating the Malaysia

inbound market as a special case. To date most tourism studies

have focused on major international tourist markets such as

Japan, Mainland China, and the USA. However, the potential of

the Muslim tourism market merits attention on the basis of the

worldwide growth trends in the Muslim population(Battour et

al., 2012).In 2010, the Muslim populationconstituted 1.61

billion or about 23.4% of the world’s population of 6.9

billion. Furthermore, 62% of the Muslim population resides

within the Asia-Pacific region (Pew Research Center’s Forum on

Religion and Public Life, 2011). Second, Malaysia is the

wealthiest Muslim country in Southeast Asia as well as the

opinion leader among the region’sMuslim population. Thus the

trend by Malaysian tourists to travel increasingly to overseas

8

countriesmay herald an increase in tourism demand from other

Muslim countries. Third, Malaysia accounts for the largest

number of arrivals to Korea from the 57 member-countries of

the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) (SESRIC, 2010).

The number of Malaysian arrivals has increased substantiallyby

41.9% and 37.5% in 2010 and 2011 respectively, though it

decreased by 2.8% in 2012.

Fourth, tourism has been one of ten priority industrial

sectors for OIC member cooperationduring the period since

1994. The staging of Islamic conferences of tourism ministers

and a number of group meetings and seminars on tourism

development has sought to foster active cooperation within the

tourism sector (Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and

Public Life, 2011). Given the relatively active network of OIC

member-countries, Malaysia’s Muslim tourism market has

potential to provide a bridgehead for Korea into a larger

Muslim market within the Middle East (Han and Lee, 2009).

Fifth, along with the popularity of Korean pop culture,

including K-Pop, TV dramas and movies, Malay intentions to

visit Korea are rising(Kim et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2010).

Consistent economic, diplomatic, cultural, sports, industrial,

9

and academic cooperation between Korea and Malaysia stimulates

reciprocal travel.Japan, China, and Korea are leaders within

East Asia in terms of international economic or diplomatic

influence. On this basis it is suggested that Malays may

consider these countries as destinations offering similar

brand qualities

[INSERT TABLE 1 HERE]

[INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE]

[INSERT TABLE 2 HERE]

Literature review

The formulation of a successful destination marketing

strategy should be built upon an understanding of both

positioning and tourist preferences (Kotler et al., 1993).

There is a strong and growing interest in destination

positioningamongst researchers, particularly about the

evaluation of attractiveness or competitiveness within a

multitude of emerging or renovating competitors. The first

step in conducting positioning analysesis to identify and

evaluate competing destinations. It has been common practice

10

amongst researchers to ask visitors about other places that

they have considered or visited in order to determine a

primary group of competitors. Crompton et al. (1992) for

example, asked respondents to list other winter destinations

that they had visited recently when identifying competitors to

the Lower Rio Grande Valley.

One approach to identifying destination positioning is to

compare the similarities and dissimilarities or strengths and

weaknesses of their positioning attributes, as perceived by

potential or actual visitors. The destination attributes that

are selected for comparative purposes should possess

importance, distinctiveness and comparabilityin the context of

the destination set (KotlerandGertner, 2002). Such attributes

should be understandable to tourists, affordable, and

profitable from a destination perspective (Kotler et al.,

2010). Positioning typologies have particular importancein the

analysis of destination positioning, because the results of

such analyses vary according to the selected items.

Most positioning studies have measured destination

positioning through the lens of destination image and/or

attributes and features (e.g., Ahmed, 1991; Balogluand

11

McCleary, 1999; Dolnicarand Grabler, 2004; Kim and Agrusa,

2005; Pike, 2012; Pike and Ryan, 2004; Qu and Qu, 2011).

Destination positioning has also been measured using tourist

motivations and benefits sought (Botha et al., 1999; Crompton

et al., 1992; Kim et al., 2000), preferred visitor activities

in a destination (Chen and Uysal, 2002), constraints (Kim et

al., 2000), personal value (Pike, 2012), personality (Qu and

Qu, 2011), and satisfaction (Ibrahim and Gill, 2005).

Based on the differences between applicable

destinationsas perceived by potential visitors, destination

marketers need to understand preferences in the context of

perceived needs (Kotler et al., 1993; Morgan andPritchard,

2001). Such understanding also helps marketers to distinguish

a destination from alternatives and to make use of such

attributes to attract prospective visitors (Jang et al.,

2004). Numerous studies have identified different preferred

behaviors or attitudes towards a destination on the basis of

socio-demographic variables (Agrusa et al., 2011; Balogluand

Shoemaker, 2001; Kim and Prideaux, 2005; Moscardo et al.,

2000), purpose of visit or preferred tourist activities (Choi

and Tsang, 1999; Hsieh et al., 1992; McKercher et al., 2002;

12

Moscardo et al., 2000; Sung et al., 2000). Some papers have

identified distinct destination preferences or purchasing

destination-based service on the basis of motivations (Andreu

et al., 2005; Balogluand Shoemaker, 2001; Jang and Cai, 2002;

Pearce and Lee, 2005; Sirakaya et al., 2003).

Tourist destination preferences may vary on the basis of

cross-cultural dimensions (Baharand Kozak, 2007; Kim and

Agrusa, 2005; Kim and McKercher, 2011; You et al., 2000).

Different attitudinal tendencies between Asian and Western

cultures are also evidentin the incidence of payments and tip

giving in destination settings (Murray, 1997), communications

(Stevens and Brownell, 2000), complaint behaviors (Huang et

al., 1996), satisfaction and expectation levels (Baharand

Kozak, 2007; Kim and McKercher, 2011; Kivelaand Chu, 2001).

The evidence that cultural or national backgroundsinfluence

tourist preferences is convincing, because tourists

havefamiliarity with social or cultural practices through

learningor absorbing language, history, philosophy, ideology,

or religion(Chong, 2008; Testa, 2002).

The above findings are congruent with the influence of

social norms or religion on visitor destination preferences

13

(Bagozzi et al., 2001; Chau and Lau, 2001; Sparks and Pan,

2008). It is evident that Chinese customers tend to move in

groups or talk loudly when with their compatriots. When they

are choosing gifts, Chinese tourists tend to consider their

relationships with family, co-workers, or superiors. On this

basis, their preferencesare likely to reflect Chinese social

norms such as face saving and collectivism. On the other hand,

Muslimswho are traveling may prefer destinationswith a mosque

or facility that incorporatesa prayer room.Muslim tourists

also seem to show a dietary preference for ḥalāl food and for

Muslim restaurants.

Already accounting for 23.4% of world population

according to 2010 data, the Muslim population is predicted to

increase, making up 26.4% of the world population of 8.3

billion by 2030 (Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and

Public Life, 2011). Of all Asia-Pacific residents, 24.8% are

Muslims (Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public

Life, 2011). Despite the growing significance and potential of

the segment few researchers have focused on Muslim tourists

compared with the prolific literature on American, Chineseand

Japanese tourists. In addressing this gap the current study

14

intends to stimulate interest in the attitudinal disparities

of Muslim tourists based on their socio-demographic, cultural,

and gender characteristics.

Methodology

Conceptualization

This study developed a conceptual framework shown in

Figure 2. To evaluate a tourism destination,measurement of a

destination brand equity and identification of tour products

preferred by a specific tourist group in a destination are

required. In this study, the destination brand equity was

conceptualized asa total of brand image, brand awareness,

brand association, and brand loyalty. The concept of brand

equity was derived from studies that have adopted Keller’s

(1993) CBBE model in tourism setting (Boo et al., 2009;

Konecnik& Gartner, 2007; Im et al., 2012; Lee & Back, 2008)

and hospitality (Peasad&Dev, 2000).

Unlike brand equity which indicates cognitive or

emotional evaluation of a destination, there is a need to

investigate actual preference for characteristics of products

provided in a tourism destination. That is, assessment of

15

preferred tour products in a destination demonstratesmore

specific and elaborate understanding of the destination where

Malaysian Muslim tourists want to go.Features of the preferred

tour products include variables such as preferred tour type,

length of stay, food, accommodation, and preferred gift to

buy. The variables specify assessment regarding

characteristics of actual tour products in three destinations

including China, Korea and Japan where Malaysian Muslim

tourists prefer to travel. The conceptual framework is

illustrated in Figure 2.

[INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE]

Measurement

This study has been developed carefully to achievethe

research objectives, namely, to explore emerging destination

brand positioning typologies, to compare three competitive

destinations on the basis of identified components, and to

identify tourist preferences as regards tourism type, gifts,

and provided services. The research design involved the

followings stages: 1) the selection of key destination brand

16

positioning components; 2) the generation of a pool of

positioning items and exclusion of unrelated items; 3)

completion of a survey of Malay perceptions of Korea as a

travel destination compared with Japan and China; 4) survey

dataanalysis; and 5) interpretation and discussion of the

survey results.

The first stage drew extensively from the literature and

involved the selection of key destination brand positioning

typologies and their associated items, as well as items

related to tourist preferences. A review of previous

destination branding studies revealed several salient

components of destination brand positioning: destination brand

awareness, image, associations, and loyalty (Boo et al., 2009;

Cai, 2002; Keller, 1993; KonecnikandGartner, 2007; Qu et al.,

2011; YooandDonthu, 2001). The items that indicated tourist

preferences toward tourism type, gifts, and services

includedpreferred type of tourism (i.e., independent tour,

package tour, or combination of both), length of stay,

preferred food, and preferred accommodation type (Agrusa et

al., 2011; BalogluandShoemaker, 2001; Jang et al., 2004).

The second stage involved generating a pool of items that

17

apply to the destination brand positioning typologies in

visitor perceptions of the three destination countries. As has

been recommended by Churchill (2000), a focus group session

wasconducted. A panel included fourMuslim participants who

were majoring Asian Studies in a graduate school of Korea and

one director of international broadcasting company who was

keenly interested in Muslim tourism and culture. The selection

of the panelists was based on estimation that they understand

both Muslim country and Korea clearly.They were providedwith

statements about the image, attributes, and features of Korea

as a destination. The focus group sessions generated an

initial list of items. These were examined for

comprehensiveness and clarity by a panel of five expert

judgesconsisting of tourism and marketingacademics and

practitioners.

A five-point Likert-type scale was used to measure all

items relatingto the destination brand positioning typologies

(i.e., destination brand awareness, image, associations, and

loyalty), where “1” was “strongly disagree”, “3” (“neutral”),

and “5” (“strongly agree”). Items indicating tourist

preferences toward tourism type, gifts, and services were

18

measured as categorical variables. The procedures noted above

generated the following items; 23 image attributes, 3 brand

awareness items, 5 brand association items, and 5 brand

loyalty items.

Data collection

For the third stage, professional research staff from a

marketing agency in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysiaadministered an on-

site surveyin order to investigate visitor perceptions of the

proposed positioning attributes and tourist preferences. The

target sample consisted of attendees of one of Kuala Lumpur’s

largest tourism expositions. The data were collected on-site

in the expo hall. The respondents were confined to Muslim

citizens aged 18 years or abovewho were capable of completing

the questionnaires in written English. The sampling method

wasconvenience sampling which respondents were chosen by

interviewers with judgment for appropriateness to this study,

willingness to complete a four-page long questionnaire, and

interest in this survey.

The final step involved asking potential respondents to

state their religious adherence.Only those identifying

19

themselves as Muslimswere provided with a questionnaire. With

a view to increasing the response rate, a key holder

embroidered with Korean traditional motifs was offered as a

gift for each completed questionnaire. Following the exclusion

of questionnaires with multiple missing or insincere answers,

326 usable questionnaires were finally collected out of the

750 distributed, yielding a 43.4% response rate.

Data analyses

The data set was subject to further analyses, including

descriptive analyses, factor analysis, paired t-tests, and

chi-square tests. A series of factor analyses was conducted

with a view to identifying the underlying domains of the four

destination brand positioning constructs (i.e., brand image,

awareness, association, and loyalty). Paired t-tests were

conducted to identify the mean differences between the set of

three competing tourism countries (i.e. China, Japan, and

Korea). Chi-square tests were then applied to explore

statistically significant associations between the demographic

variables and tourist preferences.

20

Results

Demographic profile

According to the results of the frequency analysis, 65.4%

were female and 63.4% were married. About 77% were in their

20s and 30s, and 68.0% were college graduates. Reasons for

including those in their 20smay reflect interest in overseas

travel as student group tour,honeymoon tour, study abroad and

pleasure tour with company workers before marriage.About 73%

were employed; 20.2% were students, 14.6% company employees,

16.1% professionals, and 13.7% were management.The highest

percentage was accounted for by those with incomes of MYR

2,000 or below (27.6%) and between MYR 2,001 and 3,000

(21.6%). The respondents emanated roughly equally from rural

and urban areas. About 88% of the respondents had not

previously visited Korea.

The researchers consider the sample to be appropriate for

thepurposes of the study. First, it reflects the increasing

population of potential Malaysian Muslim tourists to Korea.

Second, given that this study aims to identify the components

of brand equity and feelings in relation to the three

countries, it may be assumed that respondents with no travel

21

experience to Korea, China, and Japan will have

similarprofiles. A frequency check of respondents reporting no

travel experience to the three countries revealed similar

percentage values of 88%, 90%, and 87% for Korea, China and

Japan respectively. On this basis, few respondents would be

expected to have complex images accumulated afteractual travel

to the relevant destination. Finally, there was no evidence of

skewness regarding the proportions of the categories of

demographic variable (e.g., occupation, average household

income, age, or living community size). As a result, this

sample contained various characteristics of the population.

Factor analysis and reliability tests

Table 3 reports the findings of the factor analyses of

items associated with the four brand positioning constructs.

The brand image constructconsistedof 23 items and the factor

analysis yielded six underlying domains with eigenvalues

greater than 1.0. Varimax rotation was employed to maximize

the variances of the factor loadings, and the scree plot

figure revealed eigenvalues were greater than 1.0for all six

factors. The 6-factor solution model explained 59.44% of the

22

variance. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.87, thus

validating the outcome of the factor analysis to extract the

factor structure. Barlett’s test of sphericity ascertained the

existence of all brand image factors existed. This yielded a

value of 0.82 (p=0.000), indicative that one or more factors

existed in the factor structure.

The reliability alphas within the six domains were 0.80,

0.86, 0.67, 0.68, 0.63 and 0.68, respectively. This specific

range of 0.63 to 0.80exceeded the criterion (0.60) that was

recommended by Allen and Yen (1979), indicative of high

internal consistency of items within each domain. Meanwhile,

factor loading assesses the correlation between observed

measurements and factors, and in interpreting derived factors,

the values are classified as fair or above when they exceed

0.45 (ComreyandLee, 1992). On the basis that the factor

loading values for all 23 items were greater than 0.45, they

satisfied Comrey and Lee’s (1992) criterion. The mean values

for all individual items showed a range of 2.75 to 4.07,

whereas the grand means for the six image domains were 4.01,

2.90, 3.91, 3.59, 3.51 and 3.27 respectively. Interestingly,

the lowest grand mean value (2.90) was recorded for “access to

23

Muslim culture,” whereas the highest grand mean value (4.01)

was recorded for “tourism facilities and attractions.”

Factor analyses were also conducted to assess the

underlying dimensionality of the following constructs: brand

awareness (3 items), brand association (5 items) and brand

loyalty (5 items). The results of the factor analyses produced

a single-factor solution structure in which only one factor

had an eigenvalue of greater than 1.0. The three constructs

accounted for 62.60%, 57.41%and 57.61% of the variance

respectively. The KMO measures of sampling adequacy for the

three constructs were 0.67, 0.78 and 0.82 respectively. It is

evident that the values confirmed a high validation of the

factors. The results of the reliability alpha measurements to

check the internal consistency of each construct were 0.70,

0.81and 0.85, respectively. Conclusively, the three constructs

confirmed the characteristic of uni-dimensionality.

[INSERT TABLE 3 HERE]

Brand positioning perceptions of thethree destinations

The next step involved comparisons of three pairs among

24

the competitive destinations. Paired t-tests were conducted to

explore whether significant differences existed between Korea

and China, between China and Japan, and between Korea and

Japanregarding the identified destination brand positioning

domains (i.e., brand image, brand awareness, brand

association, and brand loyalty) (Table 4). First, regarding

brand image, significance was found on 5 of 6 brand image

domains at the 0.001 level. Respondents had a more positive

impressions of Korea than of China concerning: “tourism

facilities and attractions;” “environmental, natural, and

cultural resources;” and “hospitality and amusement”. However,

respondents indicated more brand image attributes for “access

to Muslim culture” and “convenience and comfort.”In comparing

the applicable brand awarenessfor Korea and China, no

significance was found, perhaps indicativethat respondents

could not distinguish clearly between KoreaandChina. The mean

scores for Korea around brand association and brand loyalty

were higher than those reported for China. This suggests that

Korea was perceived as a better provider of service and

loyalty than China.

Relative to China, Japan reported a higher mean score in

25

domains such as “tourism facilities and attractions;”

“environmental, natural, and cultural resources;” “hospitality

and amusement;” “convenience and comfort;” and

“others.”Conversely, the respondents had a stronger

association with “access to Muslim culture” for China than for

Japan. Relative to China respondents indicated that Japan had

a higher level of brand awareness, brand association, and

brand loyalty. Malaysian Muslim respondents appear to view

Japan as better known and as more capable of providing good

quality tourism services. This lead to greater loyalty towards

Japan as a destination than to China.

When Korea and Japan are compared, Japan was perceived to

have a higher mean score than Korea on two domains -“tourism

facilities and attractions” and “hospitality and amusement”.

Malaysian Muslim respondents indicated that Japan had a higher

mean score than Korea on brand awareness and association. The

results are presented in Table 4 and in Figures 3 and 4.

[INSERT TABLE 4 HERE]

[INSERT FIGURES 3&4 HERE]

Emotions about thethree destinations

26

In comparing the mean scores of emotional feelings

between Korea and China, 2 of 5relevant items were found to be

significant. Respondents perceived Korea as more peaceful and

exciting than China. On 3 items that were significant in a

comparison of emotional feelings between China and Japan, a

higher mean score was reported in the case of the following

perceptions: “emotional,” “peaceful,” and “exciting.” When the

mean scores of emotional feelings were compared between Korea

and Japan, significance was found on 4 of 5 emotional items.

Japan was perceived to be more “emotional,” “familiar,”

“peaceful,” and “exciting.” The results are shown in Table 5

and in Figure 5.

[INSERT TABLE 5 HERE]

[INSERT FIGURE 5 HERE]

Factors considered in deciding on adestination

Of the factors considered by respondents in determining a

preferred overseas destination, “environmental, natural, and

cultural resources” had the highest mean score(4.32), followed

by “access to Muslim culture” (4.28), “convenience and

27

comfort” (4.24), “tourism facilities and attractions” (4.12),

“hospitality and amusement” (3.86), and “others” (3.48).

Preferred touristcharacteristics according to socio-demographic variables

As reported in Table 6 the researchers tested for any

associations between preferred tourism characteristics and

socio-demographic variables. The variables used for the

preferred tourism characteristics included tour type, length

of stay, accommodation type, season, and food. Those used for

the socio-demographic characteristics included age, gender,

marital status, educational level, income level, and

occupation. Chi-square tests conducted to identify the

association between preferred tour type and age yielded

significance at the 0.05 level (χ2 =11.51, p=0.021).

It was found that respondents in their 20s had a stronger

preference for independent tours more than those in other age

groups, whereas the oldest age segment wasleast favorable to

independent tours. Significance was found (χ2=13.53, p=0.035)

at the 0.05 level when analyzing the preferred length of stay

and educational level.Relative to other educational

groups,high school graduate respondents preferred stays

28

ofthree-to-four nights, and least preferred seven or more

nights. The results of the chi-square test that was undertaken

to understand the associations between gender as well as the

preferred type of tour and preferred food indicated respective

significance at the 0.05 and 0.001 levels. Male respondents

were more favorable to independent tours, whereas female

respondents showed a preference for package tours. Female

respondents demonstrated a greater preference for ḥalālfood

than theirmale counterparts.

In an analysis of the association between marital status

and length of stay and preferred accommodation typethere was a

discovery of significance at the 0.05 level. Married

respondents showed a stronger preference for stays of three-

to-four nights andfor deluxe hotels than their single

counterparts. Chi-square tests were undertaken to investigate

income level, length of stay, and preferred accommodation type

and generated significance at the 0.05 level. Wealthier

respondents were more willing to stay longer than their lower

income counterparts. Those in the highest income bracket

expressed the lowest preference for condominiums and home

stays, whereas those in the lowest income bracket preferred

29

condominiums and home stays. Finally, the Chi-square tests

that were undertaken to analyze the relationship between

occupation and preferred accommodation type yielded

significance at the 0.05 level. Company employees and self-

employed respondents exhibited a stronger preference than

other occupation groups for deluxe hotels. Students showed the

greatest preference for budget hotels, whereas professionals

showed the least.

[INSERT TABLE 6 HERE]

Gift preferences according to socio-demographic variables

An analysis of the association between preferred gifts

and socio-demographic variables is reported in Table 7. The

variables used for preferred gifts included clothing,

jewelry/ornaments, home electronics, souvenirs, fabrics,

homewares, music CDs/DVDs, books, and health-related products.

The variables used for socio-demographic characteristics

included age, gender, marital status, educational level,

income level, and occupation. The Chi-square tests that were

used to identify the association between preferred gifts and

age yielded significance at the 0.05 level in the case of

30

homewares (χ2=5.55, p=0.050) and health-related products

(χ2=11.40, p=0.002). Older respondents were more strongly

inclined to buy homewares or health-related products.

In analyzing the relationship between preferred gifts and

educational levels, significance was found at the 0.05 level

for jewelry/ornaments (χ2=8.65, p=0.013) and books/magazines

(χ2=5.36, p=0.040). College graduate respondents showed a

stronger intention to buy jewelry/ornaments than those in

other educational groups. This indicates that the higher the

educational level, the higher the intention to buy

books/magazines. In testing the association between preferred

gifts and gender, significance at the 0.05 or 0.001 level was

observed for jewelry/ornaments (χ2=13.60, p=0.000), home

electronics (χ2=17.72, p=0.000), and health-related products

(χ2=3.83, p=0.047). Females showed a higher level of

willingness to buy jewelry/ornaments than males. However,

males indicated a stronger intention to purchase home

electronics and health-related products.

Significance at the 0.05 level was found in the analysis

of the association between marital status and music CDs/DVDs

(χ2=3.76, p=0.036), as well as between marital status and

31

health-related products (χ2=4.21, p=0.040). Single respondents

showed a higher intention than married people to buy music

CDs/DVDs, while married respondents indicated a higher level

of intention to purchase health-related products than single

people. Results of the chi-square test which conducted to

assess the association between preferred gifts and income

level indicated significance at the 0.05 level for health-

related products (χ2=7.40, p=0.050), homewares (χ2=7.98,

p=0.046), and books/magazines (χ2=6.80, p=0.049). Regarding

health-related products, low-income or high-income respondents

reported stronger intentions to purchase health-related

products, whereas the low-income respondents showed a higher

intention to buy books/magazines.

Significance was found at the 0.05 level when analyzing

the association between occupation and fabrics (χ2=14.04,

p=0.015), homewares (χ2=12.38, p=0.030), and music CDs/DVDs

(χ2=11.59, p=0.041). Respondents who were self-employed,

educated, and classified as civil servants showed a higher

intention to buy fabrics than those in other occupation

groups. Company employees reported relatively low intentions

to buy homewares, while students showed the highest intention

32

to purchase music CDs/DVDs.

[INSERT TABLE 7 HERE]

Conclusion and discussion

The two main objectives of this study were to assess the

competitiveness of three destinations (i.e., Japan, Korea, and

China) in accommodating the preferences of Malaysian Muslim

tourists. A number of academic and industrial implications are

now presented.

First, the paired t-tests investigating the

competitiveness of three countries on the basis of brand image

showed that destination brand positioning is meaningful. Korea

was perceived as having a better destination brand than China

except in case of “access to Muslim culture”, whereas Japan

was perceived as having a better destination brand than China

except in the case of “access to Muslim culture”. In comparing

Korea and Japan, Malaysian Muslim respondents tended to

perceive Japan as having a higher brand positioning value than

Korea.

The results were consistent with analyses of the three

countries for the purposes of brand awareness, association,

33

and loyalty. Overall, Malaysian Muslims perceived Japan as

having the most favorable destination brand positioning,

followed by Korea and China. The results were consistent

except in the case of the destination imagequestion which

referred to “access to Muslim culture.” Interestingly, China

was found to be more advantageous than Korea or Japan for

opportunities to experience Muslim culture. This indicated

that respondents expect more opportunities to experience

Muslim culture in China than in the case of the two other

countries. Their perception may relate to about eight million

Muslim people in China who mostly live in Xinjiang Province

and partly in the coastal city of Sanyain southern China, even

Beijing, Mongolia and Ningxia. The slowly growing Muslim

community has formed a niche market, primarily in food

services, for both domestic and international tourists.

Third, when comparing emotional feelings that respondents

displayed towards the three countries, there was a stronger

perception of Korea as “peaceful”and“exciting” than of

China.Japan was also perceived to be a more peaceful and

exciting than China. In a similar vein, respondents perceived

that Japan was more favorable than Korea in terms of being

34

“emotional,”“familiar,”“peaceful,” and “exciting.” Based on

these findings, Malaysian Muslims expressed a greater sense of

proximity with Japan than with the two other nations.

Nevertheless, Korea wasperceived in a slightly more positive

light than China.

Fourth, as a resultof comparing the three nations in the

domains of destination brand positioning typology and

emotions,it was found that Japan was the country that

respondents most wanted to visit, followed by Korea and China.

The results were similar to those from the analysis of four

other domains of destination brand positioning and emotions.

However, “access to Muslim culture” was perceived to be the

second most influential factor when potential Muslim tourists

select an overseas destination. This finding differs from

previous studiesin which tourists weremotivated to seek

novelty when choosing to visit a destination (Assaker et al.,

2011; Snepenger, 1987). This is an intriguing point because

few tourism destinations consider the cultural needs of Muslim

tourists such as ḥalāl food, Muslim restaurants, or prayer

rooms. Such tourism destinations appear to expect tourists to

experience their native or traditional culture.

35

In accordance with the saying “when in Rome, do as the

Romans do,” tourists may abide by the culture or social norms

of the host society. By contrast it may be argued that the

host community should not force tourists to follow its

traditions, religious activities, and other customs. Thus, the

results of this study imply that destination marketers should

be aware of the high tendency of Muslims to seekIslamic

related cultural features in overseas destinations.

Furthermore, when Muslim tourists are selected as a target

market, a destination should attach greater significance to

considering Muslim cultural elements along with issues of

service quality, tourism facilities and entertainment.

Fifth, regarding preferred type of tour respondents in

their 20s showed a higher preference for “independent tours”

than people in their 30s or in older age groups. It is

understandable that younger peopletend to travel independently

without the assistance of a tour guide. This finding

resemblesthose of previous studies, which showed that relative

to senior generations younger prefer more adventurous and

challenging destinations (Huang and Tsai, 2003; Hughes and

Deutsch, 2010; Jang and Ham, 2009).

36

Sixth, female respondents preferred “package tours” more

than male tourists, whereas male respondents showed a higher

preference for “independent tours” compared with their female

counterparts. This finding is also understandable because

females tend to choose safer, more developed or urban

destinations rather than wild, isolated, or adventure-filled

destinations. The results correspond to those of previous

studies (Carr, 2001; McGehee et al., 2007; Westwood et al.,

2000). Interestingly, relative to male respondents female

Muslims indicated a stronger desire to eat ḥalālfood in a

foreign place. This suggests that travel agencies should

considergender differences when programming tour itineraries

or developing tour products.

Seventh, single respondents preferred to stay longer,

whereas married respondents preferred to stay more briefly.

Relative to the unmarried,a higher percentage of married

respondents showed a preference for deluxe accommodations.

Married people also preferred spacious or more luxurious hotel

rooms for their convenience as a couple or with other family

members. The literature supports the finding that the

preference for a tour product may differ according to marital

37

status (Agrusa et al., 2011; Bronnerand de Hoog, 2008; Kang

and Hsu, 2005).

Eighth, wealthier Muslim respondents revealed their

preference to stay longer in a deluxe hotel, whereas low-

income respondents indicated a preference for staying for

shorter periods in a condominium or house. This result

reflects different preferences when choosing a tour product or

facilities/services. It is also supported by previous studies

that indicated different preferences for types of tour

according to income level (Chang et al., 2013; Jang et al.,

2004; Lim et al., 2008).

Ninth, regarding their intention to purchase gifts,

senior respondents showed a higher preference than their

younger counterparts for homewares or health-related products.

High school graduates indicated a higher preference for

books/magazines than respondents with higher educational

levels. Interestingly, low-income respondents had a preference

for books/magazines than senior respondents. This finding

challenges the conventional wisdom, because book purchasing is

generally associated with higher educational level. In our

survey, some of the high school graduates or low-income

38

respondents included college students or people in their late

20s, and young people tend to show an interest in Korean pop

culture, including K-pop, Korean TV dramas, movies, food, and

the Korean language. This is understandable because Malaysia

and Korea have developed a closer relationship through the

entry of numerous Korean construction, ITand retail companies

into the Malaysian market as well as through the popularity of

K-pop among the younger generation (Park, 2012).

Female respondents showed a higher preference than males

for jewelry/ornaments, whereas males indicated a higher

preference for home electronics and health-related products.

This finding is consistent with other studiesin which females

are keenly interested in jewelry, accessories, or fashion as

well as in tourism shopping (Rosenbaum and Spears, 2005;

Reisingerand Turner, 2002; Timothy, 2005; Timothy and Butler,

1995). Single Muslims revealed a higher preference for music

CDs/DVDs than married respondents, whereas the latter

indicated a higher preference for health-related products. The

results reflect social features associated with a preference

amongst the younger generation for music and health

consciousness on the part of married and older people.

39

This study is involved some limitations. This study

identified only three countries in Asia even though Malaysian

tourists travel to southern Asian countries including Hong

Kong, Thailand, Singapore. Future studies are needed to extend

these countries to identify tourism competitiveness. The

samples were collected at a travel EXPO in Kuala Lumpur.

Future research are need to compare results of this study from

those when samples in different places in Malaysia are

selected.

This study offers insights from an academic and practice

perspective. From the academic perspective, theinvestigation

differs from previous destination positioning studies by

having considered destination competitiveness. Most

destination positioning studies have compared competitive

destinations in terms of image attributes, motivations,

benefits sought, preferred activities in a destination,

constraints, personal value, personality, and satisfaction.

The results of destination competitiveness analysis could vary

according to the standards or criteria used to compare the

destinations. This study has adopted the concept of brand

destination positioning typology consisting of domains such as

40

brand image, brand awareness, brand association, and brand

loyalty.

The examination of Muslim tourist preferences can help to

fill the knowledge gapwhich exists around the characteristics

of Muslim-oriented tourism. The results should benefit tourism

businesses or national tourism organizations by providing

insights into the competitiveness conditions prevailing in

three East Asian countries and the preferencesof Malaysian

Muslim tourists.Future studies are needed to make active use

of the domains of destination brand positioning typology to

assess destination brand positioning. Though the population of

Muslim tourists is increasing, there have been relatively few

studies of Muslim tourism. Future studies shouldidentify the

attitudinal or behavioral characteristics of potential or real

tourists from other Muslim countries, given that indigenous

culture or customs may vary according to country of residence.

41

Table 1. Korea’s international arrivals by region (2005

to 2012)

Country

Asia Americas

PacificOceania

Europe MiddleEast

Africa

2005 Number 4,441,752

640,050 85,200 508,859 46,714 18,165

42

Increase(%)

4.2% 4.8% 9.3% 2.2% 3.2% 1.5%

Share(%)

73.7% 10.63% 1.4% 8.5% 0.8% 0.3%

2006 Number 4,551,345

673,118 91,516 534,834 53,338 21,090

Increase(%)

2.5% 5.2% 7.4% 5.1% 14.2% 16.1%

Share(%)

73.9% 10.9% 1.5% 8.7% 0.9% 0.3%

2007 Number 4,683,231

716,336 107,829 559,432 63,609 26,623

Increase(%)

2.9% 6.4% 17.8% 4.0% 19.3% 12.0%

Share(%)

72.6% 11.1% 1.7% 8.7% 1.0% 0.4%

2008 Number 5,018,219

744,615 127,569 592,303 74,218 26,209

Increase(%)

7.2% 3.9% 18.3% 5.9% 16.7% 10.9%

Share(%)

72.8% 10.8% 1.9% 8.6% 1.1% 0.4%

2009 Number 6,005,049

751,697 130,446 597,762 69,461 28,501

Increase(%)

19.7% 1.0% 2.3% 0.9% -6.4% 8.7%

Share(%)

76.8% 9.6% 1.7% 7.7% 0.9% 0.4%

2010 Number 6,749,222

813,860 146,089 645,753 89,292 33,756

Increase(%)

12.4% 8.3% 12.1% 8.0% 28.5% 18.4%

Share(%)

76.7% 9.3% 1.6% 7.3% 1.0% 0.4%

2011 Number 7,662,129

827,383 155,654 681,025 104,163 36,979

Increase(%)

13.5% 1.7% 6.5% 5.5% 16.7% 9.5%

Share(%)

78.2% 8.5% 1.6% 6.9% 1.1% 0.4%

2012 Number 8,215,380

814,438 152,240 667,481 113,711 38.810

43

Increase(%)

7.2% -1.6% -2.2% -2% 9.2% 5%

Share(%)

79.7% 7.9% 1.5% 6.5% 1.1% 0.4%

Total Numbers 39,932,327

5,981,497

996,543 4,787,449

614,506 227,133

Share(%)

76.0% 11.4% 1.9% 9.1% 1.2% 0.4%

Source: Korea Tourism Organization (2013), Annual Report of TourismStatistics.

Table 2. Top 10 inbound arrivals by Asian tourists in Korea

(2005 to 2012)

Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Japan Number 2,440,

1382,338,921

2,235,963

2,378,102

3,053,311

3,023,009

3,289,051

3,291,565

Increase(%)

-0.1 -4.1 -4.4 6.4 28.4 -1.0 8.8 0.1

Share(%)

40.5 38.0 34.7 34.5 39.1 34.4 33.6 31.94

China Number 710,243

896,969

1,068,925

1,167,891

1,342,317

1,875,157

2,220,196

2,640,895

Increase(%)

13.2 26.3 19.2 9.3 14.9 39.7 18.4 18.9

Share(%)

11.8 14.6 16.6 16.9 17.1 21.3 22.7 25.63

44

USA Numbers 530,633

555,704

587,324

610,083

611,327

652,889

661,503

697,866

  Increase(%)

3.8 4.7 5.7 3.9 0.2 6.8 1.3 5.5

  Share (%)

8.8 9.0 9.1 8.9 7.8 7.4 6.8 6.3

Taiwan Number 351,438

338,162

335,224

320,244

380,628

406,352

428,208

507,382

Increase(%)

15.3 -3.8 -0.9 -4.5 18.9 6.8 5.4 18.5

Share(%)

5.8 5.5 5.2 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.92

Philippines

Number 222,655

248,262

263,799

276,710

271,962

297,452

337,268

305,416

Increase(%)

4.3 11.5 6.3 4.9 -1.7 9.4 13.4 -9.4

Share(%)

3.7 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.5 3.4 3.4 2.96

Thailand

Number 112,724

128,555

146,792

160,687

190,972

260,718

309,413

347,080

Increase(%)

9.9 14 14.2 9.5 18.8 36.5 18.6 12.3

Share(%)

1.9 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.4 3.0 3.2 3.37

HongKong

Number 166,206

142,786

140,138

160,325

215,769

228,582

280,840

326,424

Increase(%)

7.2 -14.1 -1.9 14.4 34.6 5.9 22.9 16.2

Share(%)

2.8 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.7 2.6 2.9 3.17

Malaysia

Number 96,583 89,854 83,049 83,754 80,105 113,675

156,281

151,861

Increase(%)

2.8 -7.0 -7.6 0.8 -4.4 41.9 37.5 -2.8

Share(%)

1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.47

Singapore

Number 81,751 88,386 93,951 95,960 96,622 112,855

124,565

123,426

Increase(%)

-4.1 8.1 6.3 2.1 0.7 16.8 10.4 -0.9

Share(%)

1.4 1.4 4.5 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2

45

Indonesia

Number 62,294 62,869 67,450 81,001 80,988 95,239 124,474

131,244

Increase(%)

1.3 0.9 7.3 20.1 0 17.6 30.7 5.4

Share(%)

1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.1 2.3 1.27

India Number 58,560 62,531 68,276 73,130 72,779 86,547 92,047 85,338Increase(%)

2.8 6.8 9.2 7.1 -0.5 18.9 6.4 -7.3

Share(%)

0.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.83

Source: Korea Tourism Organization (2013), Annual Report of TourismStatistics.

Table 3.Factor analysis and reliability test results(N=326)Construct

s Items Factorloading Mean

Brandimage

Domain 1: Tourism facilities and attractions (reliabilityalpha=0.80, 14.38%)Advanced technology and economyHigh quality of infrastructure (i.e., transport, roads, airport, technology, and so on)Good shopping facilitiesInteresting cultural events or festivalsAvailability to visit featured locations of movies or TV dramasInteresting sightseeing opportunities

0.7240.7090.7080.6200.5930.570

4.074.003.983.974.034.01

Domain 2: Access to Muslim culture (reliability alpha=0.86, 13.15%)Accessibility of Muslim prayer service and spaceFamiliarity with Islamic culture and religionConvenient location of mosquesA wide choice of ḥalāl restaurants

0.8870.8730.8610.669

2.962.992.902.75

Domain 3: Environmental, natural, and cultural resources (reliability alpha=0.67, 9.47%)Safe and secure environmentBeautiful natural attractions/scenery

0.7190.671

3.674.04

46

Interesting cultural/historical attractions 0.534 4.01Domain 4: Hospitality and amusement (reliability alpha=0.68, 9.42%)Friendly local peopleAvailability of outdoor recreation activities (e.g., camping, canoeing, fishing)A wide variety of entertainment and nightlife choicesA wide range of accommodations

0.7500.6380.6270.481

3.603.483.653.63

Domain 5: Convenience and Comfort (reliability alpha=0.63, 6.82%)Less communication (language) barrierAcceptable cost of accommodationsStandard hygiene and cleanlinessGood weather and climate

0.7540.4770.4700.451

3.083.383.773.80

Domain 6: Other (sports, food) (reliability alpha = .68, 6.20%)Availability of water sports (e.g., beaches, sailing)Appealing local cuisine

0.7680.682

3.253.29

Brandawareness (Reliabil

ityalpha=0.7

0,62.60%)

I know what Korea looks like.I am aware of Korea.I recognize Korea as a travel destination among othercountries.

0.8030.7790.771

3.614.043.90

Brandassociati

on(reliabil

ityalpha=0.8

1,57.41%)

Korea provides high-quality tourist attractions.The overall quality of Korea as a travel destination is high.I like Korea.Korea provides high-quality services.My overall attitude toward Korea is favorable.

0.7870.7800.7560.7390.724

4.003.913.983.853.87

Brandloyalty(reliabil

ityalpha=0.8

0,57.61%)

Korea will be my first choice if I have an opportunity totravel overseas.I would intend to travel to Korea in the next five years.I would strongly recommend Korea to someone who seeks my advice.I would still consider a trip to Korea even if the travelcost increased.I am loyal to Korea.

0.8330.8290.8100.7110.581

3.813.883.803.493.23

Note: Items were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1=stronglydisagree, 3=neutral, 5=strongly agree).

47

Table 4. Comparison of components of destination brandpositioning amongthree competitive destinations

ItemsKorea vs China China vs Japan Korea vs JapanKorea

China

Pairedt-

valueChina

Japan

Pairedt-

valueKorea Japa

nPaired t-value

Brand imageDomain 1: Tourism facilities and attractionsDomain 2: Access to Muslim cultureDomain 3: Environmental,natural and cultural resourcesDomain 4: Hospitality and amusementDomain 5: Convenience and ComfortDomain 6: Others (sports, food)

4.01

2.90

3.91

3.59

3.51

3.27

3.80

3.43

3.69

3.42

3.36

3.22

7.63**

-11.37*

*

6.81***

6.17**

5.35**

1.43

3.80

3.43

3.69

3.42

3.36

3.22

4.11

2.85

3.93

3.64

3.55

3.30

-10.56*

*

12.75**

-7.10**

-7.97**

-7.06**

-2.43*

4.01

2.90

3.91

3.59

3.51

3.27

4.11

2.85

3.93

3.64

3.55

3.30

-4.43**

1.92

-.59

-2.01*

-1.87

-1.25

Brand awareness 3.85 3.81 1.12 3.81 3.93 -2.93* 3.85 3.93 -2.09*

Brand association 3.93 3.65 7.01** 3.65 3.99 -9.20**

3.92 3.99 1.96*

Brand loyalty 3.64 3.44 4.20** 3.44 3.69 -5.40**

3.64 3.69 -.94

Note: *p<.05, ** p<.001.

Table 5. Comparisons of emotional feelings towardsthreecompetitive destinations

Items Korea vs China China vs Japan Korea vs JapanKoreamean

China

meanPaired t-value

Chinamean

Japanmean

Pairedt-

valueKorea

meanJapanmean

Paired t-value

48

EmotionalFamiliarSpiritual/scaredPeacefulExciting

5.405.175.115.755.94

5.285.255.195.525.80

1.71-

1.27-

1.233.69**2.15*

5.285.255.195.525.80

5.555.335.175.946.05

-4.03**

-1.12.29-

8.04**-

5.45**

5.405.175.115.755.94

5.555.335.175.946.05

-2.54*-

2.34*-.94-

3.39**-

2.05*

Note: *p<.05, ** p<.001.

Table 6.Chi-square tests to identify associations betweenpreferred type and socio-demographic variables

Preferred type 20s 30s 40s or olderPreferred tour type (χ2=11.51,p=.021) Independent tour Independent tour + packagetour Package tour

17.8%50.7531.5%

10.2%38.8%51.0%

8.1%58.4%33.5%

Preferred type High schoolgraduate

Collegegraduate

Graduateschool orabove

Length of stay (χ2=13.53, p=.035) 3-4 nights 5 nights 6 nights 7 or more nights

34.4%21.3%24.6%19.7%

20.2%28.0%16.1%35.8%

23.8%28.6%26.2%21.4%

Preferred type Male FemalePreferred tour type (χ2=8.52, p=.014) Independent tour Independent tour + packagetour Package tourFood (χ2=10.31, p=.001)Hallal Others

17.9%51.9%20.2%

67.3%32.7%

7.2%55.6%37.2%

83.2%16.8%

Preferred type Single MarriedLength of stay (χ2=8.56,

49

p=.036) 3-4 nights 5 nights 6 nights 7 or more nightsAccommodation (χ2=8.52, p=.014) Deluxe Budget Condominium and home stay

18.2%26.6%20.2%35.0%

48.1%30.6%21.3%

31.0%28.3%16.8%23.9%

65.4%22.4%12.1%

Preferred type Income 1(RM 2,000 or

below)

Income 2(RM

2,000-4,000)

Income 3(RM 4,001-5,000)

Income 4(RM 5,001or above)

Length of stay (χ2=16.20,p=.050) 3-4 nights 5 nights 6 nights 7 or more nightsAccommodation (χ2=15.79, p=.015) Deluxe Budget Condominium and home stay

37.9%24.1%10.3521.65

44.8%33.1%22.1%

22.0%21.1%27.1%23.7%

66.7%19.7%13.6%

26.1%24.2%17.2%32.5%

71.4%14.3%14.3%

11.0%35.6%19.2%34.2%

60.0%30.7%9.1%

Preferred type Companyemploye

es

Self-employed

Professionals

Students

Educationandcivilservants

Others

Accommodation (χ2=18.30, p=.045) Deluxe Budget Condominium and home stay

60.6%28.8%10.6%

68.3%17.5%14.3%

56.8%27.3%15.9%

38.7%37.1%24.2%

57.5%22.5%20.0%

33.3%42.9%23.8%

Table 7.Chi-square tests to identify associations betweenpreferred gift and socio-demographic variables

Preferred gift 20s 30s 40sHomeware (χ2=5.55, p=.050) No YesHealth-related products (χ2=11.40, p=.002)

92.9%7.1%

96.4%

83.6%16.4%

96.5%

89.8510.2%

83.7%

50

No Yes

3.6% 5.5% 16.3%

Preferred gift High schoolgraduate

Collegegraduate

Graduateschool orabove

Jewelry/ornaments (χ2=8.65, p=.013) No YesBooks/magazine (χ2=5.36, p=.040) No Yes

76.7%23.3%

88.3%11.7%

58.3%41.7%

95.454.6%

73.2%26.8%

97.6%2.4%

Preferred gift Male FemaleJewelry/ornaments (χ2=13.60, p=.000) No YesHome electronics (χ2=17.72, p=.000) No YesHealth-related products (χ2=3.83, p=.047) No Yes

77.4%22.6%

76.6%23.4%

90.7%9.3%

56.1%43.9%

93.2%6.8%

96.1%3.9%

Preferred gift Single MarriedMusic CD/DVD (χ2=3.76, p=.036) No YesHealth-related products (χ2=4.21, p=.040) No Yes

80.0%20.0%

96.0%4.0%

92.9%8.1%

90.3%9.7%

Preferred gift Income1(RM 2,000or below)

Income 2(RM

2,000-4,000)

Income 3(RM

4,001-5,000)

Income 4(RM 5,001or above)

Health-related products (χ2=7.40, p=.050) No YesHomeware (χ2=7.98, p=.046) No YesBooks/magazines (χ2=6.80, p=.049) No Yes

83.4%16.6%

93.0%7.0%

93.6%6.4%

95.8%4.2%

88.7%11.3%

94.4%5.6%

89.7%10.3%

75.9%24.1%

96.6%3.4%

84.5%15.5%

88.1%11.9%

100.0%0%

51

Preferred gift Companyemploye

es

Self-employed

Professionals

Students

Educationandcivilservants

Others

Fabrics (χ2=14.04, p=.015) No YesHomeware (χ2=12.38, p=.030) No YesMusic CD/DVD (χ2=11.59, p=.041) No Yes

81.9%18.1%

94.4%5.6%

83.1%16.9%

57.4%42.6%

85.3%14.7%

91.2%8.8%

72.0%28.0%

92.2%7.8%

88.0%12.0%

79.7%20.3%

93.8%6.2%

76.9%23.1%

64.3%35.7%

88.1%11.9%

97.6%2.40%

76.2%23.8%

71.4%28.6%

85.7%14.3%

Figure 1. Top 10 Tourist arrivals by country in 2012

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

arrivals % increase

Source: Korea Tourism Organization (2013).Annual Report of TourismStatistics. Seoul: KTO.

Figure 2.Conceptualization of this study

52

Figure 3. Comparison of brand image among three competitivedestinations

Tourism facilities and attractions

Access to Muslim culture

Environmental, natural and cultural resources

Hospitality and amusement

Convenience and Comfort

Others (sports, food)

2.533.544.5

KoreaChinaJapan

Figure 4. Comparison of brand awareness, brand association,and brand loyalty among three competitive destinations

53

Brand awareness

Brand associationBrand loyalty

3.23.43.63.84

KoreaChinaJapan

Figure 5. Comparison of emotional feelingstowards threecompetitive destinations

Emotional

Familiar

Spiritual/scaredPeaceful

Exciting

55.25.45.65.866.2

Korea

54

References

Aaker DA (1996) Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California

Management Review38(3): 102-130.

Agrusa J Kim S and Wang K (2011) Mainland Chinese Tourists to Hawaii: Their Characteristics and Preferences.Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing28(2): 261-278.

Ahmed ZU (1991) The influence of the components of a State’s tourist image on product positioning strategy. Tourism Management12(4): 331-340.

Agarwal S (1997) The resort cycle and seaside tourism: an assessment of its applicability and validity. Tourism Management18(2):65-73.

Allen MJ and Yen WM (1979) Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Andreu L Bigne JE and Cooper C (2000) Projected and perceivedimage of Spain as a tourist destination for Britishtravellers. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing9(4): 47-67.

Andreu L Kozak M Avci N andCifter N (2005) Market segmentationby motivations to travel: British tourists visiting Turkey.Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing19(1): 1-14.

Assaker G Vinzi V and O’Connor P (2011) Examining the effect of novelty seeking, satisfaction, and destination image on tourists’ return pattern: A two factor, non-linear latent growth model. Tourism Management32(4): 890-901.

Atilgan E Aksoy S andAkinci S (2005) Determinants of the brandequity: A verificationapproach in the beverage industry in Turkey. MarketingIntelligence and Planning23(3): 237-248.

Bahar S andKozak M (2007) Advancing destination

55

competitiveness research: Comparison between tourists andservice providers. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing22(2): 61-71

Bagozzi RP Lee K.-H and Van Loo MF (2001) Decisions to donatebone marrow: The role of attitudes and subjective normsacross cultures. Psychology and Health16(1): 29–56.

Baloglu S and Shoemaker S (2001) Prediction of seniortravelers’ motorcoach use from demographic, psychological,and psychographic characteristics.Journal of TravelResearch40(August): 12-18.

Battour MM, Battor MM and Ismail S. (2012). The mediatingrole of tourist satisfaction: A study of Muslim tourists inMalaysia. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 29(3): 279-297.

Boo S Busser J andBaloglu S (2009) A model of customer-basedbrand equity and its application to multiple destinations. Tourism Management 30(2):

219-231.

Botha C Crompton JL and Kim S (1999) Developing a revisedcompetitive position for Sun/Lost City, South Africa.Journalof Travel Research37(May): 341-352.

Bronner F and de Hoog R (2008) Agreement and disagreement infamily vacation decision-making.Tourism Management29(5); 967-979.

Cai LA (2002) Cooperative branding for ruraldestinations.Annals of Tourism Research29(3): 720-742.

Carr N (2001) An exploratory study of gendered differences inyoung tourists perception of danger within London. TourismManagement22(5); 565-570.

Chang K Chen C and Meyer T (2013) A comparison study of travelexpenditure and consumption choices between first-time andrepeat visitors. Tourism Management35(April): 275-277.

Chen JS andUysal M (2002) Market positioning analysis: A

56

hybrid approach. Annals of Tourism Research29(4): 987-1003.

Choi WM and Tsang CKL (1999) Activity based segmentation onpleasure travel market of Hong Kong private housingresidents. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing8(2): 75-97.

Chon KS Weaver PA and Kim CY (1991) Marketing your community:Image analysis in Norfolk. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant AdministrationQuarterly February, 31-37

Chong E (2008) Managerial competency appraisal: A cross-cultural study of American and East Asian mangers. Journal ofBusiness Research61: 191-200.

Churchill GA (2001) Basic marketing research. Dryden Press: FortWorth, TX.

Comrey AL and Lee HB (1992) A first course in factor analysis (2nd edn.).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crompton JL Fakeye PC andLue C (1992) Positioning: The exampleof the Lower Rio Grande Valley in the winter long staydestination market. Journal of Travel Research31(Fall): 20-26.

Day J Skidmore S andKoller T (2002) Image selection indestination positioning: A new approach. Journal of VacationMarketing8(2): 177-186.

Dolnicar S and Grabler K (2004) Applying city perceptionanalysis (CPA) for destination positioning decisions.Journalof Travel & Tourism Marketing16(2/3): 99-112.

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) Tourism destinationcompetitiveness: a quantitative approach. TourismManagement25(6);777-788.

Gartner WC (1989) Tourism image: Attribute measurement ofstate tourism products using multidimensional scalingtechniques.Journal of Travel Research28(Fall): 16-20.

Haahti AJ (1986) Finland’s competitive position as adestination.Annals of Tourism Research13(1): 11-35.

57

Han H and Lee J (2009) An exploratory study on the MalaysianMuslim tourism market to Korea. Journal of Tourism ManagementResearch13(1): 167-196.

Hsieh S O’Leary JT and Morrison AM (1992) Segmenting theinternational travel market by activity. TourismManagement13(June): 209-223.

Huang J Huang C and Wu S (1996) National characters andresponse to unsatisfactory hotel service.International Journal ofHospitality Management15(3): 229-243.

Huang L and Tsai H(2003) The study of senior traveler behaviorin Taiwan. Tourism Management24(5): 561-574.

Hughes HL and Deutsch R (2010) Holidays of older gay men: Ageor sexual orientation as decisive factors? TourismManagement31(4); 454-463.

Ibrahim EE and Gill J (2005) A positioning strategy for atourist destination, based on analysis of customers'perceptions and satisfactions.Marketing Intelligence andPlanning23(2); 172-188.

Im H Kim S Elliot S and Han H (2012) Conceptualizing the brandequity dimensions from a consumer-based brand equityperspective. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing29:385-403.

Jang JBaiB Hong G and O’Leary J (2004) Understanding travelexpenditure patterns: a study of Japanese pleasure travelersto the United States by income level. TourismManagement25(3): 331-341.

Jang S andCai LA (2002) Travel motivations and destinationchoice: A study of British outbound market. Journal of Travel andTourism Marketing13(3): 111-132.

Jang S and Ham S (2009) A double-hurdle analysis of travelexpenditure: Baby boomer seniors versus older seniors.Tourism Management30(3): 372-380.

58

Jang SMorrison A and O’Leary JT (2004) A procedure for targetmarket selection in tourism.Journal of Travel and TourismMarketing16(1): 19-33.

Kang S and Hsu C (2005) Dyadic consensus on family vacationdestination selection. Tourism Management26(4): 571-582.

Keller KL (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managingcustomer-based brand equity.Journal of Marketing57(January): 1-22.

Kim D and Perdue RR (2011) The influence of image ondestination attractiveness. Journal of Travel and TourismMarketing28(3): 225-239.

Kim S andAgrusa J (2005) The positioning of overseas honeymoondestinations. Annals of Tourism Research32(4): 887-904.

Kim SSAgrusa J Lee H and Chon, K. (2007).Effects of Koreantelevision dramas on the flow of Japanese tourists.TourismManagement28(6): 1340-1353.

Kim SS Crompton JL and Botha C (2000) Responding tocompetition: A strategy for Sun/Lost City, South Africa.Tourism Management21(1): 33-41.

Kim S Lee H and Chon K (2010).Segmentation of different typesof Hallyu tourists using a multinominal model and itsmarketing implications.Journal of Hospitality and TourismResearch34(3), 341-363.

Kim S and McKercher B (2011) The collective effect of nationalculture and tourist culture on tourist behavior. Journal ofTravel and Tourism Marketing28(2): 145-164.

Kim S and Morrison A (2005) Change of the image of Korea asperceived by foreign tourists before and after the 2002World Cup. Tourism Management26(2): 233-247.

Kim S and Prideaux B (2005) Marketing implications arising

59

from a comparative study of international pleasure touristmotivations and other travel-related characteristics ofvisitors to Korea.Tourism Management26: 347-357.

Kivela J and Chu C (2001) Delivering quality service:Diagnosing favorable and unfavorable service encounters inrestaurants. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research25(3):251-271.

Konecnik M andGartner WC (2007) Customer-based brand equityfor a destination. Annals of Tourism Research34(2): 400-421.

Konecnik M and Go F (2008) Tourism destination brand identity:The case of Slovenia. Brand Management15(3): 177-189.

Korea Tourism Organization (2013) Annual Report of Tourism Statistics.Seoul: KTO.

Kotler P Bowen J andMakens JC (2010) Marketing for hospitality and tourism.4thedn. Seoul: Pearson.

Kotler P andGartner D (2002) Country as brand, product, andbeyond: A place marketing and brand management perspective.Brand Management9(4/5): 249-261.

Kotler P Haider DH andRein I (1993)Marketing places: Attractinginvestment, industry, and tourism to cities, states and nations. New York: TheFree Press.

Kozak M andRimmington M (1999) Measuring tourist destinationcompetitiveness: Conceptual considerations and empiricalfindings. International Journal of Hospitality Management18: 273-283.

Lim C Min J andMcAleer M (2008) Modelling income effects onlong and short haul international travel from Japan.TourismManagement29(6): 1099-1109.

MacKay MM (2001) Application of brand equity measures inservice markets. The Journal of Services Marketing15(3): 210-21.

Malaysia Tourism Authority (2011) Malaysia in brief.http://www.tourism.gov.my/ about_malaysia, accessed January

60

30, 2012.

McGehee NG Kim K andJennings GR (2007) Gender and motivationfor agri-tourism entrepreneurship.Tourism Management28(1):280-289.

McKercher B Ho PSY du Cross H andChow S (2002) Activity-basedsegmentation of the cultural tourism market.Journal of Travel &Tourism Marketing12(1): 23-46.

Morgan N andPritchard A (2001) Contextualizing destinationbranding. In N. Morgan, A.

Pritchard and R. Pride (eds.), Destination Branding (pp. 11-41).Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Moscardo G Pearce P andMorrison A (2001) Evaluating different bases for market segmentation: A comparison of geographic origin versus activity participation for generating tourist market segments.Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing10(1): 29-49.

Moscardo G Pearce P Morrison A Green D andO’Leary JT (2000) Developing a typology for understanding visiting friends andrelatives markets. Journal of Travel Research38(February): 251-259.

Murray M (1997) Put your best foot forward Asia: A fearless guide tointernational communication and behavior. St. Paul, MN:International Education Systems.

Nickerson NPandMoisey RN (1999) Branding a state from featuresto positioning: making it simple? Journal of VacationMarketing5(3): 217–226.

Park J (2013) The 27th Golden disk awards in Kuala Lumpur. Union News. Retrieved from http://www.unionpress.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=186917

Park, M. (2012) Cosmetics, food exports to Asia double in 3 years. Korea Herald. December 11, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20121101000724

61

Pearce PP andLee U-I (2005) Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation. Journal of Travel Research43(February): 226-237.

Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life (January27, 2011). The future of the global Muslim population:projections for 2010-2030. Retrieved January 16, 2013.http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx

Pike S (2012) Destination positioning opportunities usingpersonal value: Elicited through the Repertory Test withLaddering Analysis. Tourism Management33: 100-107.

Pike S andRyan C (2004) Destination positioning analysisthrough a comparison of cognitive, affective, and conativeperceptions. Journal of Travel Research42:333-342.

Pulina M Dettori D &Paba A (2006) Life cycle of agrotouristic firms in Sardinia. Tourism Management27(5):1006-1016.

Qu H Kim LH andIm HH (2011) A model of destination branding:Integrating the concepts of the branding and destinationimage. Tourism Management32(3):465-476.

Qu Y andQu H (2011) Non-utilitarian tourism destination positioning using affective images and personality traits. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article= 1016&context=gradconfhospitality

Reisinger Y andTurner L (2002) The determination of shoppingsatisfaction of Japanese tourists visiting Hawaii and theGold Coast compared. Journal of Travel Research41: 167-176.

Rosenbaum MS andSpears DL (2005) Who buys that? Who does what?Analysis of cross-cultural consumption behaviours amongtourists in Hawaii. Journal of Vacation Marketing11(3): 235-247.

62

Seo C (2002) Leisure Industry Yearbook 2003. Seoul: Korea LeisureIndustry Consulting.

SESRIC (Statistical, Economic and Social Research and TrainingCentre for Islamic Committees) (2010) International tourismin the OIC countries: Prospects and challenges 2010.Retrieved from http://www.sesric.org/files/article/419.pdf

Sirakaya E Uysal M andYoshioka C (2003) Segmenting theJapanese tour market to Turkey. Journal of TravelResearch41(February): 293-304.

Snepenger DJ (1987) Segmenting the vacation market by novelty-seeking role.Journal of Travel Research26(2): 8-14.

Sparks B andPan GW (2008) Chinese outbound tourists:Understanding their attitudes, constraints and use ofinformation sources. Tourism Management30(4): 483-494.

Spivack SE (1998) Health spa development in the US: aburgeoning component of sport tourism. Journal of VacationMarketing4: 65-77.

Stevens B andBrownell J (2000) Ethics: Communicating standardsand influencing behavior. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant AdministrationQuarterly41(April): 39-43.

Sung H Morrison AM andO’Leary JT (2000) Segmenting theadventure travel market by activities: From the NorthAmerican industry providers’ perspective. Journal of Travel andTourism Marketing9(4): 1-20.

Testa M (2002) Leadership dyads in the cruise industry: Theimpact of cultural congruency. International Journal of HospitalityManagement21: 425-441.

Timothy DJ (2005)Shopping tourism, retailing and leisure.Clevedon:Channel View.

Timothy DJ andButler RW (1995) Cross-border shopping: a NorthAmerican perspective. Annals of Tourism Research22(1): 16-34.

63

Uysal M Chen J andWilliams DR (2000) Increasing state marketshare through a regional positioning. Tourism Management21(1): 89-96.

Valls J Sierra V Bañuelos MA andOchoa I (2009) Spanish holidaybrands: Comparative analysis of 10 destinations. In L. Cai,WC. Gartner and A. Munar (eds.). Tourism branding: Communities inaction (Bridging tourism theory and practice) (pp. 119-131),Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Westwood S Pritchard A andMorgan N (2000) Gender-blind marketing: businesswomen's perceptions of airline services. Tourism Management21(4): 353-362.

Yoo B andDonthu N (2001) Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research52(1): 1-14.

You X O’Leary J Morrison A andHong G.-S (2000) A cross-cultural comparison of travel push and pull factors: United Kingdom vs. Japan. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration1(2): 1-26.

Zhong L Deng J and Xing B (2008) Tourism development and the tourism area life-cycle model: A case study of Zhangjiajie National Forest Park, China. Tourism Management29(5):841-856.

64