OriginalScientificArticle
TheModeratorEffectofthePerception
ofValueCo-CreationontheRelationship
betweenHotelBrandEquityandWOM
AbdullahUslu
AkdenizUniversity,Turkey
auslu@akdeniz.edu.tr
GözdeSevalErgün
AkdenizUniversity,Turkey
gates@akdeniz.edu.tr
Inthecurrentconjuncture,whenthecompetitiveenvironmentisgettingeverfiercer,
the importance of creating brand value and the effect of wom in all processes be-
fore/afterapurchasehavebeengrasped.Alongwiththis,intheservicesector,where
thecustomer-employeerelationship is dense,applications regardingthe perception
ofvaluecreationhavestartedtobeusedinanincreasingmanner.Forthisreason,the
aim of the study is to determine the effect of the brand equity of foreign tourists on
wom andwhetherthereisamoderatoreffectofthePerceptionofValueCo-Creation
on this effect. The population of the study is comprised of foreign tourists com-
ing to Marmaris, Turkey. On the 358 surveys gathered from foreign tourists, efa,
cfa, second-order cfa analyses, path analyses and Slope tests have been carried
out.Consequently,ithasbeendeterminedthathotelbrandequityhaseffectsonthe
perception of value co-creation and wom, and that perception of value co-creation
has effects on wom. Also, in the relationship between foreign tourists’ hotel brand
equityand wom,ithasbeendeterminedthatthereisamoderatoreffectontheper-
ceptionofvalueco-creation.
Keywords: hotelbrandequity, wom, perceptionof valueco-creation,Marmaris
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.14.149-164
Introduction
Enterprises are proving inadequate with regard to
dealing with increasingly challenging and competi-
tiveconditionsbyusingconventionalmarketingtech-
niques. It is considered that new customers will be
gainedbythecontemporarymarketingapproach,sus-
tenance will be maintained for the customers gained,
andinadditionthepermanenceofexistingcustomers
will be ensured. Ensuring customer sustenance will
only be possible if customers feel valued during/after
the purchasing of the goods or service. Grönroos
(2000) emphasizes that brand equity is a result of the
brandrelationshipwhichisconstantlydevelopedwith
thecustomer.
According to the current perspective of salespeo-
ple, Word-of-Mouth communication (wom) is seen
as an important topic which plays a key role in mar-
keting, and it is known that it has substantial effects
andconsequences(Albarq,2014).wom,whichdeter-
mines behaviour and has great interpersonal effect,
is seen as one of the most important information re-
sourcesoftheconsumer.Salespeoplewhowishtocat-
alyze and manage these interactions that will benefit
them have started to think about and develop strate-
Academica Turistica, Year 14,No. 2,December 2021 |149

Abdullah Uslu andGözde SevalErgün TheModerator Effect
giesinordertomanagethisinterpersonaleffect.These
effects are seen as important for tourism enterprises,
where it is difficult to evaluate the product before it is
consumed(Ergün&Akgün,2016).AccordingtoJalil-
vandandSamiei(2012), wom isanimportantmethod
that is used for influencing tourists to endow them
with ahighcoefficienteffect.
The effect of wom on brand equity (Yang et al.,
2015; Murtiasih et al., 2014; Moise et al., 2019) and
increasing value co-creation (Seifert & Kwon, 2020)
can be observedin previous studies. In this study, the
moderator role of value co-creation differentiatesthis
researchfromtheothers.Whilereferringtotheeffect
of brand equity on wom, the enriching effect of value
co-creation, which is a third variable, makes the re-
sultsoftheresearchnotable.Thebusinessesthatwant
tobedifferentandconnectwithconsumersbycreating
a value for them are trying to form strong and valu-
able brands (Marangoz & Aydın, 2021). Considering
thepositiveresultsachievedwithoutcreatingvalue,it
is of great importance for accommodation businesses
to learn how to manage this process, which requires
active customer participation. It is easily understood
thatthecreationofsuchvaluedependslargelyonhow
the hotel is perceived (Cantallops, 2019). In order to
ensure brand equity, the importance of offering value
tothecustomerandmatchingthisvaluewiththecus-
tomer perception has been increasingly recognized.
Withinthiscontext,thefindingthatbrandequityand
valueco-creationwilltogetherhaveastrongereffectis
thought to be a guide, especially for businesses. What
ismore,intheliteraturereview,nostudywasfoundin
which these variables were simultaneously examined.
Accordingly,itisthoughtthattheresearchwillfillthe
gapintheliteratureandbeaguideforfuturestudies.
The mainaimofthisstudy istomeasurethe effect
ofhotelbrandequityon wom anddeterminewhether
value co-creation has a moderator effect in this pro-
cess.Priortotheresearchanalyses(customer-based),a
literaturereview has been provided in orderto ensure
understandingofthetheoreticalbasesfortheconcepts
of hotel brand equity, wom and perception of value
co-creation,andtodevelophypotheses.Subsequently,
in order to achieve the aim of the study, efa, cfa,
second-order cfa analyses, path analyses and Slope
tests have been carried out in the methodology sec-
tion.
LiteratureReview
WOM
wom can be defined as an interpersonal communi-
cation occurring informally between a source and a
buyer that does not have a commercial agenda at-
tributable to a brand, product or enterprise (Ander-
son,1998).When wom’seffectsaretakenintoconsid-
eration, it is assumed that it has a mysterious power
and is a tool that works to determine the satisfaction
or dissatisfaction created after a product experience
(Gremler,1995).
wom, which is seen as a popular market phe-
nomenonbywriters(Laczniaketal.,2001),isnotlim-
itedtoface-to-faceinteraction,andcanbetransferred
byinteractivetoolssuchasthetelephoneandinternet
(Dellarocas,2003).Also,inonlineandofflinecommu-
nication,opinionleadersandreliableandknowledge-
able individuals comment on content and influence
thosesearchingforopinions(Lee etal.,2011).
As the complexity of products increases and their
evaluation becomes harder, or when it is considered
riskytopurchase,therateofindividualswhoneedrec-
ommendations from people they trust increases. It is
seen that people have a tendency to follow users’ rec-
ommendations rather than messages conveyed thro-
ugh advertisement (Barlow & Moller, 2008). In fact,
technically, wom can be used in order to reduce am-
biguity withregardtogoodsorservicesandminimize
risk (Abubakar, 2016). Those services are intangible
renderspre-trialsimpossible.Forthisreason,wom
plays an importantrolein the decisionstakenregard-
ingservicebusinesses.Also, wom becomesespecially
important when the service provided is complex or it
has a high perception of risk (Zeithaml et al., 1996).
Since tourismservices areone of thosethatcannot be
evaluated prior to purchase, they are considered high
riskpurchases(Sotiriadis&Zyl,2013).
HotelBrandEquity
Brand is one of the fundamental marketing concepts.
Until recently, the following definition of the concept
150 | Academica Turistica, Year 14,No. 2,December 2021

Abdullah Usluand Gözde SevalErgün TheModerator Effect
of brand has been dominantin both the general mar-
ketingandtourismmarketingliterature.Kotler(2000,
p. 404) defines ‘brand’ as follows: ‘A name, term, sign,
symbol,designoracombinationofthesethatdefinea
sellerorsellergroup’sgoodsorservicesanddifferenti-
atesitfromothers.’However,Grönroos(2000)claims
that this definition takes the concept of brand only
withaunilateralperspectiveandexcludestheconsum-
ing process and customer. According to this perspec-
tive, if a brand is to be built, the customer is the one
whodoesthat.Inthiscase,theroleofthesalesperson
is to ensure communication support by using various
planned marketing communication tools and to cre-
ate frameworks in the minds of customers in order to
developabrand.
It is known thatright branding bears a critical im-
portance for organizational success (Huang & Cai,
2015). Brand managers are responsible generally for
creating a strong brand and sustaining it, while they
alsohavetofindwaystomeasurebrandvalue(Kaya-
man&Arasli,2007).Brandvalueisthemostprevalent
concept that is used to represent brand performance
and is measured as financial value in the organiza-
tional statement (Pike, 2010). There are three differ-
ent perspectives regarding brand equity in the litera-
ture.Thesearethefinance-basedapproach,customer-
based approach and mixed approach (Bailey & Ball,
2006; Kim & Kim, 2005). Researchers taking the fi-
nancial approach into consideration define brand eq-
uity as the cash flow created by a product’s brand
name(Akgün & Akgün, 2014). This approach is criti-
cized since it cannot encapsulate all factors constitut-
ing a brand’s power and ignores consumer behaviour.
Customer-based brand equity, as the other approach
acknowledged in brand equity, regards the way goods
andservicesareperceivedandevaluatedandprovesa
determining factor in subsequent purchases (Broyles
et al., 2010). With this perspective, Keller (1993) fo-
cuses on what the customer learned, saw, heard and
felt about the brand. Lastly, a mixed approach com-
prises both the market power and the financial value
ofthebrand(Sericetal.,2017).Thereasonbehindthe
concept of brand being measured with the customer-
based brand equity is the change oriented towards a
customer-based approach from a product-based ap-
proach in the service marketing paradigm (Grön-
roos, 2000). It is considered that the conceptualiza-
tion of brand equity with the customer perspective
will be beneficial for both marketing strategies and
the decision-making process in management (Keller,
1993)andthatthebrandismorevaluablerelativetoits
rawfinancial evaluation(Pike, 2009).
When the studies focused on brand equity in the
literature are reviewed, it is seen that the conceptual
framework underlying all of these studies is based on
Aaker (1991) and Keller (1993). Aaker (1991) identi-
fied four main brand value variables in their study.
These are brand loyalty, perceived quality, brand im-
age and brand awareness, respectively. Keller (1993,
p. 8) defines brand value as ‘the different effect of
the brand knowledge on the customer reaction to
the brand marketing’ and the concept of brand is
evaluated in two dimensions: brand awareness and
brand image. In addition to these studies, Yoo and
Donthu(2001)havedevelopedthemulti-dimensional
consumer-basedbrandequity scale.
Althoughhereareanumberofdifferentdefinitions
with regard to the concept of customer-based brand
equity, there is a common consensus on the brand
value’s being comprised of the four perceived dimen-
sionssuggestedbyAaker(1991).Thesedimensionsare
brand awareness, brand image, perceived quality and
brandloyaltyasarelationalvariable(Sericetal.,2018).
The concept of brand equity is seen as quite im-
portant in the tourism sector as well as other service
sectors. According to certain studies carried out on
theconceptofbrandintheliterature,itisclaimedthat
brand hotels provide better performance in compar-
ison to others (Forgacs, 2003). Also, it is contended
thatthereisapositiverelationshipbetweenthebrand
value success of luxury hotels and their financial per-
formances (Kim & Kim, 2005). The main topic of the
studiesintheconceptofhotelbrandequityisdefined
by Prasad and Dev (2000, pp. 23–24) as ‘the positive
or negative attitudes and perceptions affecting cus-
tomers’reservation.’
The increasing international activities of accom-
modation businesses render it necessary to carry out
more research on customer-based brand equity. Des-
tinationsandhotelenterprisesthatendeavourtodom-
Academica Turistica, Year14,No. 2,December 2021 |1 51

Abdullah Uslu andGözde SevalErgün TheModerator Effect
inateothercountriesinthetourismsectorsplacemore
importance on the issue of branding in comparison
tothepast(Çınaretal.,2019).Hotelenterprisesthat
take on the heavy load of the sector are dramatically
affected by global developments and lean heavily on
thematterofcreatingbrandvalueinordertoturnthis
situation into opportunity. All positive or negative at-
titudesandperceptionsaffectingacustomerinprefer-
ring a hotel brand represent brand equity. Whereas a
customer’sgoodexperienceinabrandhotelincreases
brand equity, a bad experience damages brand equity
(Prasad & Dev, 2000). It is considered that as hotels
arebecoming brands,their customerperceptions will
be affected, and positive mental attitudes will be en-
sured.Furthermore,insteadofadvertisementsasmass
media tools that are losing their validity, the advan-
tages of wom established as a result of branding will
be utilized. Brand equity does not necessitate a per-
son’s experiencing a brand in order to have a brand
impression; that they are subjected to certain recom-
mendations can prove adequate on its own (Prasad &
Dev,2000).Inadditiontoallofthese,customer-based
brand equity is considered an effective tool in hotel
managers understanding their own brands (Çınar et
al.,2019).
Therearestudiesintheliteraturethatputforththe
relationbetweenbrandloyalty,brandimage,perceived
quality, brand awareness and wom (Murtiasih et al.,
2014; Moise et al., 2019). Ansary and Hashim (2018),
intheirstudy,measuredthemoderatoreffectof wom
ontherelationsbetweenbrandvaluecomponentsand
brand value. Xu and Chan (2010), in a study carried
outonhotelbrandequity,statethat wom hasastrong
effectonbrandawarenessandbrandimage.Yangetal.
(2015),intheirstudy,concludedthat wom hasanim-
portant effect on destination brand value. According
totheresultsobtainedbySofiane(2019),itisseenthat
alldimensionsofbrandequityhaveapositiveeffecton
wom.
Although the concept of brand equity was stud-
ied frequently by correlation with different variables
within the context of destination (Boo et al., 2009;
Chekalinaetal.,2018;Davras,2019;Dedeoğluetal.,
2019; Kim et al., 2017; Pike &Bianchi, 2016) and hotel
(Garcíaetal.,2018;Sericetal.,2017;Sericetal.,2018;
Seric & Gil-Saura, 2019; Sijoria et al., 2019; Sürücü et
al., 2019; Uslu et al., 2020), no studies have been en-
countered that address the relationship between per-
ceivedvalueco-creationand wom.Inthelightofthis
information,thefirsthypothesishasbeenputforthas
follows.
h1 HotelBrandEquityhasapositiveandsignifi-
canteffectonwom.
PerceptionofValueCo-Creation
Thenatureoftheconceptofvaluehasbeendiscussed
sinceAristotelesanditisknownthatithastwomean-
ings acknowledged as ‘changing value’ and ‘value in
use.’ Changing value is that emerging from the prod-
uct-dominantlogic.Accordingtothisperspective,the
valueiscreatedbythecompany(produced)andgen-
erally distributed to the market via goods or mone-
tary exchange. In the service-dominant (s-d) logic,
theconceptofvaluereferstovalueinuse(Vargoetal.,
2008). This approach entails more than merely prov-
ing to be customer oriented. Here, collaborating with
thecustomers, learningfromcustomersand adapting
totheirindividualanddynamicneedsbecomepromi-
nent.Thisservice-dominantlogicexpressesthatvalue
isdefinedbytheconsumerandcreatedwiththemin-
stead of by output (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Despite the
consensusthatthecustomerhasamoreactiveroleand
thatthevalueissubjective,thereisnoconsensusyeton
the definitionof the concept and the processesinher-
entinthisconcept(Alvesetal.,2016).
Businessescanpresentservicesasonlyvaluepropo-
sitionsandthisbecomestheinputofvaluerealization.
Itisseenthatvaluerealizationdependsonthepartic-
ipationofcustomersintheserviceprocess.Beneficia-
ries (namely, customers) determine whether value is
actually created,andthissituation rendersthe service
specific tothebeneficiary (Cabiddu etal.,2013).
Theconceptofvalueco-creationiscorrelatedwith
developing a unique competence by using organiza-
tional resources and technological capabilities aim-
ing to meet customers’ demands more efficiently and
thereby gaining a competitive advantage (Maduka,
2016). Among the propelling forces of the concept,
there are the developments and maturation in tech-
nology,acceleratedconsumerinformationandexpec-
152 | Academica Turistica, Year 14,No. 2,December 2021

Abdullah Usluand Gözde SevalErgün TheModerator Effect
tations as well as the logic of integrating consumer
needs and expectations in the value chain of a com-
pany(Chathothetal.,2016).
From an organizational standpoint, in the percep-
tion of value co-creation, the participation of man-
agers and employees is needed as much as that of the
customers, although it should not be forgotten that
theprimaryandultimateactorisalwaysthecustomer.
Managers are held responsible for designing and im-
plementingaprocessthatallowsandevenencourages
customers to take an active role. Within this context,
it is seen as indispensable to train and improve em-
ployeesinachievingsuccess(González-Mansillaetal.,
2019). For this reason, enterprises need to train em-
ployeesintheimportanceofcustomerexperienceand
on value creation resourcing from these experiences
(Chathothetal.,2016).
Grönroos (2011) considers the expression ‘[c]us-
tomerisalwaysavaluecreator’tobetrue,yetincom-
plete. They express that this definition is too basic to
accountfortheoreticaldevelopmentorpracticaldeci-
sionmaking.Itisnotentirelyclearwhatvaluecreation
means.Doesthedefinitionof valuein thisexpression
refer to the customer creating value in use or a more
comprehensiveprocesswherethecustomeriscreating
valueinuse?Thisisonlyasinglepartoftheambi-
guity. Generally, in the service-dominant logic, value
creation refers to a process encompassing everything,
and it is created not only by the customers but by dif-
ferent stakeholders, including the enterprise and the
customer(Grönroos,2011).
Theconceptoftheperceptionofvalueco-creation
focusesonenhancingthecustomer’ sexperienceby
way of improvements in the process of service provi-
sion or by adjusting the service individually accord-
ing to the needs of the customer. The situation in
question is especially considered important for lux-
ury hotels (González-Mansilla et al., 2019). While co-
creation is examined in unison in various areas in-
volving strategy, management and marketing, that it
isimplementedwithinthecontextoftourismandho-
teladministrationasaproactiveserviceprovidergains
aspecialimportance(Chathothetal.,2016).
Chekalina et al. (2014) carried out a study in or-
der to test the relationship between customer-based
brand equity and the perception of co-creation of
value. In the study conducted by González-Mansilla
etal.(2019), itwasdeterminedthatthecustomerper-
ceptionregardingtheprocessofvalueco-creationhas
apositiveeffectonthebrandvalue.Xuetal.(2019)
examinedthecustomer-basedbrandequitytheoryfor
destinations based on the value co-creation theory.
In the study, empirical results were obtained that will
encourage brand value management and the partici-
pation of tourists in value co-creation activities. Ac-
cording to the findings in Frías Jamilena et al.’s (2017)
study, it is put forth that the value co-creation per-
ception is a premise of the customer perceiving the
destinationbrandvaluetobehigher.Inthestudycon-
ducted by Seifert and Kwon (2020), it was concluded
thatthee-wom hasahighereffectonthebrandvalue
andvalueco-creationloyaltybehaviour.Asaresultof
theliteraturereview,thesecondandthirdhypotheses
havebeenconstituted.
h2 HotelBrandEquityhasapositiveandsignifi-
canteffectontheperceptionofvalueco-creation.
h3 Perception of value co-creation has a positive
andsignificanteffectonwom.
As a result of the study conducted by Prebensen
et al. (2016) on touristexperiences, it wasdetermined
thatthereis a moderatoreffecton the relationofper-
ceived value and satisfaction. Chou et al. (2018) ex-
amined the moderator effect of the value co-creation
variable in their studiesconducted ontravelagencies.
Thefourthhypothesishasbeenputforthinlightofthe
studies reviewedin theliteraturereview.
h4 Perception of value co-creation has a moder-
ating effect on the relationship between Hotel
BrandEquityandwom
Methods
TheAimoftheStudyandtheConceptualModel
The aim of this study is to: (1) determine the brand
value perceptions of foreign tourists coming to Mar-
marisontheperceptionofvalueco-creationand wom,
(2) ascertain the effect of tourists’ perception of value
co-creation on wom, and (3) determine the modera-
tor effect of perception of value co-creation on the re-
lation between hotel brand equity and wom. For this
Academica Turistica, Year 14,No. 2,December 2021 |1 53

Abdullah Uslu andGözde SevalErgün TheModerator Effect
Hotelbrand
equity
Perceptionof
valueco-creation
WOM
+H2
+H3
+H1
+H4
Figure1 The Conceptual Model
reason, by utilizing the studies in the relevant litera-
ture (Prebensen et al., 2016; Ansary & Hashim, 2018;
Sofiane, 2019; Moise et al., 2019; González-Mansillaet
al., 2019; Seifert & Kwon, 2020; Xu et al., 2019), the
model ofthestudy hasbeen createdasin Figure1.
TheMethod,PopulationandSampleoftheStudy
Inthisstudy,thequantitativeresearchsurveymethod
hasbeenusedinordertodeterminetheeffectsofhotel
brand equity dimensions (brand awareness/recogni-
tion, brand association/image, perceived quality and
loyalty) on wom and the moderator role of the per-
ceptionofvalueco-creationontherelationsbetween
these variables.This study is important in termsof its
uniqueness in the literature, for explicating the rela-
tions between these variables, and for understanding
themoderatorroleof perception of valueco-creation.
In this study based on hypothesis testing, a quan-
titative approach has been adopted and the survey
methodwasusedindatacollection.10questionswere
createdforthestudysurveyinordertodeterminethe
socio-demographical characteristics of the tourists.
For the 11 questions created with the sub-dimensions
of hotel brand equity, surveys created by González-
Mansilla et al. (2019) have been adapted. Statements
comprised of 3 questions for the wom variable have
been adopted from the study carried out by Yazgan
etal.(2014).12questionscreatedwiththesub-dimen-
sionsfortheperceptionofvalueco-creationhavebeen
adopted from the surveys created by González-Man-
silla etal.(2019). A5-pointLikertscale hasbeenused
inthesurveyas1=Completelydisagree,5=Com-
pletely agree. The survey questions were prepared
by three researchers who are experts in the area of
tourism and marketing. After the questions were ex-
amined, the statements in the survey were controlled
by a nativeEnglish speakerexpert.
The study was carried out by two surveyors who
knew the aim of the study, and one of the authors,
with convenience sampling, between 1 May and 1 Au-
gust 2019. While foreign tourists were leaving the ho-
tel enterprises that they stayed in, 370 surveys were
elicited from those tourists by informing them about
theaimofthestudyinthehotellobby.12surveysthat
wereempty or understood to be erroneoushavebeen
excludedandtherest,358surveys,havebeenincluded
in the study. These 358 surveys can be considered
adequate in representing the population (Bryman &
Cramer,2001).
The population of the study is comprised of for-
eign tourists visiting hotel enterprises in Marmaris.
The number of accommodation facilities with min-
istry accreditation operating in Marmaris is 200. Ac-
cording to the getob (South Aegean Hotel Enter-
prises’ Union), the number of foreign tourists visiting
Marmarisis around900thousandpeopleperannum.
Percentage and frequency, along with exploratory
factor analysis in spss 22.00, was applied to the data
obtained and subsequently the cfa, second-order
cfa andstructuralmodelanalysiswerecarriedoutin
the amos 22.00 package software. Subsequently, the
Slope test was utilized in determining the moderator
effect.
Results
In order to evaluate the research findings, primarily
the lost data, outlier value, homogeneity and reliabil-
ity oriented towards the raw data obtained from the
survey needed to be tested. Therefore, when the lost
dataforthestudywasgleaned,itwasseenthattherate
of empty items in the survey was not higher than 15
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) and it was not replaced
withanydata.
Checking at the outlier values for the data; ‘Z’ and
‘T’scoreshasbeenfoundthatthereisnovaluebeyond
+3 and –3. As a result of the homogeneity test, data
was determined to be homogenous since thep-value
154 | Academica Turistica, Year14,No. 2,December 2021

Abdullah Usluand Gözde SevalErgün TheModerator Effect
Table1 DemographicCharacteristicsof ForeignTourists
Category Item n 
Gender Female  .
Male  .
Nationality British  .
Dutch  .
Swedish  .
Others  .
MaritalStatus Single  .
Married  .
Marriedwithchildren  .
Educationstatus PrimarySchool  .
HighSchool  .
University  .
Master’sdegree  .
Noresponse  .
With whom
travelling
Alone  .
Family/Relatives  .
Friends  .
Noresponse  .
Continuedinthenextcolumn
washigherthan0.05(Kalaycı,2008).Apilotstudywas
conductedwith40foreigntouristsvisitinghotelenter-
prisesinMarmarisbetweenthedatesof1 and15April
2019. The Cronbach’s Alphavalue(α=0.908)regard-
ing the26statementsinvolvedin the surveyscale was
determined to be quite reliable and the study contin-
ued.
Accordingtothe358populationnumber,theCron-
bach’s Alpha (α) valuesof thescales usedin thestudy
wereexamined in orderfor their reliability and valid-
itytobeensured.AsseeninTable1,itwasdetermined
that the hotel brand equity and perception of value
co-creation dimensions in the conceptual model and
thevariablethathasthehighestreliabilityvaluewithin
the wom variable(α=0.984)isthebrandassociation
variableandthevariablethathasthelowestreliability
value(α=0.792)isthedialoguevariable.Itisseenthat
the Cronbach’s Alpha values of all the variables used
inthestudyareover(α)0.70andadequatelyreliable
(Hair etal.,2014).
Table1 Continuedfromthepreviouscolumn
Category Item n 
Household
annualincome
()
<,  .
,–,  .
,–,  .
,–,  .
,–,  .
,–,  .
>,  .
Noresponse  .
Occupation
status
Manager  .
Retired  .
Self-employed  .
Worker  .
Student  .
Civil servant  .
Housewife  .
Other  .
No response  .
DemographicCharacteristicsofForeignTourists
Thefrequencyandpercentagedistributionsofthefor-
eign tourists visiting Marmaris that were surveyed
within the scope of the study can be seen in Table
1. The tourists’ average age was determined to be 44
and their length of stay as 4 days. Accordingly, it was
determinedthat53.6(192people)oftheparticipants
are male, 46.4 (166 people) female, 45.8 (164 peo-
ple) single, 39.9 (143 people) married and 14.2 (51
people) married with children. When the nationali-
ties of the foreign tourists visiting Marmaris was ex-
amined,itwasdeterminedthat63.1(226people)are
comprised of British tourists, 26.0 (93 people) are
Dutch, 7.5 (27 people) are Swedish and the remain-
ing 3.4 (12) are of other nationalities (Irish, Scot-
tish, German). When the levels of education of the
tourists wereexamined,a 34.4(123 people)majority
was identified as college/university graduates. When
whom the tourists travelledwith was reviewed, it was
determined that a large majority of 67.0 (240 peo-
Academica Turistica, Year 14,No. 2,December 2021 |1 55

Abdullah Uslu andGözde SevalErgün TheModerator Effect
Table2 ConvergentandDiscriminantValidityValues
cr avemaxr(h) tra awa asspquall oy dia acc risk wom
tra . . . .
awa . . . . .
ass . . . . . .
pqual. . . . . . .
loy . . . . . . . .
dia . . . . . . . . .
acc . . . . .  . . . . .
risk . . . . . . . . . . .
wom . . . . . . . . . . . .
Notes Column/row headings are as follows: tra = Transparency, awa = Brand Awareness, ass = Brand Association,
pqual=PerceivedQuality,loy=Loyalty,dia=Dialogue,acc=Access,risk=Risk,wom=WordofMouth,cr=
Composite Reliability, ave = Average Variance Extracted. Diagonal values are square roots of ave values per construct;
off-diagonal values are the correlations of the variables.
ple) were travelling with Family/Relatives. In the an-
nual household income, it is seen that 21.2 (76 peo-
ple)arecomprisedoftouristswithintheincomerange
between the $50,000–$59,000 interval. On the other
hand, when their occupations were examined, it was
determined that 29.9 (107 people) at most are com-
prisedofworkers.Whenalltheseresultsaregenerally
reviewed, it can be said that most of the tourists vis-
iting the hotel enterprises are comprised of individu-
alswhoaremostlymale,British,Universitygraduates,
travellingwithFamily/relativeswithanaverageannual
income rangebetweenthe$50,000–$59,000interval.
ConvergentandDiscriminantValidity
Within the scope of determining the reliability and
validity of the study, the values of cr, ave, maxr(h)
have been examined (Table 2). In order to establish
cr (ConvergentReliability),itisexpectedthatthe cr
shouldhavevaluesof0.70andhigherand ave (Aver-
age Variance Extracted) values should have values of
0.50 and higher (Byrne, 2010). That the ave value is
higher than 0.50 means that adequate levels of vari-
ance was explicated by variables relational to factors,
and that the cr value is higher than 0.70 means that
thefactorshavehighinternalreliability(Fornell&Lar-
cker, 1981). The facts that the maxr(h) (Maximum H
Reliability) valueishigherthanthe cr valueandthat
the square root of the ave value is higher than the
correlationvaluesofthatvariablewithothervariables
meanthatdiscriminantvalidityisestablished(Fornell
&Larcker,1981).
WhenTable2isreviewed,itisunderstoodthatthe
lowest ave value calculated for the latent variables is
0.576andthelowest cr valuecalculatedis0.729,ren-
deringtheassumptionsofconvergentvalidityensured.
Itisseenthatthe maxr(h)valueishigherthanthe cr
valueforeachlatentvariableintegratedintothemodel
fordivergentreliability.Again,itisseenthatthesquare
roots of the ave value and the inter-variable correla-
tionvaluesareacceptable,therebyensuringdivergent
validityforalllatentvariables.
ExploratoryFactorAnalysis(efa)Results
Initially,totestthestructurevalidityofthescalesused
inthestudy,exploratoryfactoranalyseshavebeencar-
ried out. For this reason, exploratory factor analyses
havebeencarriedoutforthedimensionsofbrandeq-
uity and perception of value co-creation in the study
scale. kmo and Bartlett’s tests have been carried out
initially in orderto understandwhetherthey aresuit-
ableforfactoranalysis.Asaresultoftheefacon-
ducted, the kmo value has been determined as 0.873
andtheBartlett’stestχ
2
valuehasbeendeterminedas
4547.808 (p < 0.000). For the perception of value co-
156 | Academica Turistica, Year 14,No. 2,December 2021

Abdullah Usluand Gözde SevalErgün TheModerator Effect
Table3 Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Hotel Brand Equity variable, cfa and Second-Order cfa values
Brandequitydimensions efa values cfa values
Std.
loadings
Variance
explained
Eigenvalue α Std.
loadings
t values P
Perceivedquality pq . . . . . . .
pq . . – –
pq . . . .
pq . – – –
Loyalty loy . . . . . . .
loy . . – –
loy . . . .
Brandawareness awa . . . . . – –
awa . . . .
Brandassociation ass . . . . . – –
ass . . . .
Second-Order cfa analysisresults
Brandequity Perceivedquality – – – – . . .
Loyalty – – – – . . .
Brandawareness – – – – . –
Brandassociation – – – – . . .
Notes Extractionmethod:PrincipalComponentAnalysis;Rotationmethod:VarimaxRotation.Goodness-of-fitstatisticsof
cfa: Δχ
2
=77.959, df =29,χ
2
/df =2.688, rmsea =0.069, cfi =0.988, gfi =0.959, ifi =0.988.Goodness-of-fitstatistics
of second order cfa: Δχ
2
=125.097,df=31,χ
2
/df = 4.035, rmsea = 0.092, cfi =0.977, gfi = 0.936, ifi = 0.977.
creationdimensions,the kmo 0.896andtheBartlett’s
testχ
2
value has been determined as 2713.991 (p <
0.000) and these results show that it is suitable for
factoranalysis(Kalaycı,2008).
In Table 3, initially, the efa results for the expres-
sions of the foreign tourists visiting the hotel enter-
prises in Marmaris regarding hotel brand equity di-
mensions are included in the study. As a result of the
efa conducted, it has been determined that the hotel
brand equity dimensions involve a four-dimensional
structureexplaining 90.212 of thetotalvarianceand
that each of the factor loads are over 0.32 (Tabach-
nick&Fidell,2007).Asaresultofthe efa,ithasbeen
determined that brand awareness, brand association,
perceived quality and loyalty comprise the brand eq-
uity dimensions and factor loads are between 0.877
and 0.747.
On the other hand, as seen in Table 4, efa analy-
sishasbeenconductedonthestatementswherethere
are the dimensions of tourists’ perception of value
co-creation. As a result of the efa, it has been de-
termined that the dimensions of the perception of
valueco-creationinvolveafourfoldstructureexplicat-
ing 78.070 of the total variance and that each of the
factorloadsareover0.32(Tabachnick&Fidell,2007).
The dimensions which emerged are Dialogue, Trans-
parency, Accessibility, RiskandAccess,withtheirfac-
torloadsdeterminedtobe between0.889and0.421.
ConfirmatoryFactorAnalyses(CFA)forthe
DimensionsofHotelBrandEquityandPerception
ofValueCo-Creation
Inordertobeabletotestthestructurevalidityofthe
scales used, cfa was carried out on the dimensions
of Hotel Brand Equity and Perception of Value Co-
Creation. Fit indices needed to be reviewed for the
Academica Turistica, Year 14,No. 2,December 2021 |1 57

Abdullah Uslu andGözde SevalErgün TheModerator Effect
Table4 efa, cfa and Second-Order cfa values for the variable of the Perception of Value Co-Creation
Perception of value
co-creation variables
efa values cfa values
Std.
loadings
Variance
explained
Eigenvalue α Std.
loadings
t values P
Access acc . . . . . . .
acc . . – –
acc . . . .
Risk ris . . . . . . .
ris . . – –
ris . – – –
Transparency tra . . . . – – –
tra . . . .
tra . . – –
Dialogue dia . . . . – – –
dia . . – –
dia . . . .
Second-order cfa analysisresults
Perception of value
co-creation
Access – – – – . . .
Risk – – – – . . .
Transparency – – – – . . .
Dialogue – – – – . – –
Notes Extractionmethod:PrincipalComponentAnalysis;Rotationmethod:VarimaxRotation.Goodness-of-fitstatisticsof
cfa: Δχ
2
=52.216,df=21,χ
2
/df =2.486, rmsea =0.065, cfi =0.985, gfi =0.967, ifi =0.986.Goodness-of-fitstatistics
of second order cfa: Δχ
2
=78.934,df=23,χ
2
/df =3.432, rmsea =0.083, cfi =0.974, gfi =0.952, ifi =0.974.
cfa results obtained from the amos software. Fre-
quently reviewed indices among the fit indices are
Chi-SquareFit test(Δχ
2
≤ 5), rootmean square error
of approximation, rmsea (≤0.080), Goodness of Fit
Index, gfi (≥0.80), Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index:
agfi (≥0.80),comparativefitindex, cfi (≥0.90),and
incrementalfitindex, ifi (≥0.90)(Schumacker&Lo-
max,2010).
According to Table 3, hotel brand equity dimen-
s i o n sa r es u b j e c t e dt ocf aa n dt h epq4s t a t e m e n t
wereexcluded fromthestudy since its factorloadwas
low and it reduced the goodness of fit values of the
study. As a result of the repeated analysis, it was de-
termined that the factor loads of all the statements
are 0.50 (Kalaycı, 2008) and over. The goodness of fit
values of the cfa for the hotel brand equity dimen-
sions areΔχ
2
= 77.959; df = 29; χ
2
/df = 2.688; rm-
sea = 0.069; cfi = 0.988; gfi = 0.959; ifi = 0.988.
These results show that cfa has adequate goodness
of fit values (Hair et al., 2014).
Asaresultofthe cfa appliedontheperceptionof
valueco-creationdimensions,thestatementsof tra3,
ris3 and dia2 were excluded from the model since
they had low factor load and they reduced the good-
nessoffitvalues.Asaresultoftherepeated cfa anal-
ysis,itwasdeterminedthatallthefactorloadsareover
0.50.The goodnessof fitvaluesof the cfa conducted
fortheperceptionofvalueco-creationdimensionsare
Δχ
2
=52.216;df=21;χ
2
/df =2.486; rmsea =0.065;
cfi=0.985;gfi=0.967;ifi=0.986anditisseen
that it has adequate goodness of fit values (Hair et al.,
2014).
In order to reduce the hotel brand equity and per-
ception of value co-creation dimensions which will
158 | Academica Turistica, Year14,No. 2,December 2021

Abdullah Usluand Gözde SevalErgün TheModerator Effect
be involved in the conceptual model to a single di-
mension, second-order cfa analyses have been con-
ducted.Thegoodnessoffitvaluesofthesecond-order
cfa conducted to reduce the hotel brand equity to a
single dimension areΔχ
2
=125.097;df=31;χ
2
/df
=4.035;rmsea=0.092;cfi=0.977;gfi=0.936;
ifi = 0.977. On the other hand, the goodness of fit
values of the second-order cfa conducted in order
to reduce the dimensions of the perception of value
co-creation to a single dimension areΔχ
2
=78.934;
df=23;χ
2
/df = 3.432; rmsea = 0.083; cfi = 0.974;
gfi= 0.952;ifi0.974. According to all of these re-
sultsobtained,thesecond-order cfa analysesarede-
termined to have the adequate goodness of fit values
(Hair etal.,2014).
MeasurementModelandTestingtheHypothesis
Through the study, the case of whether the primary
condition of creating a model was fulfilled has been
tested by analyzing the relations between the dimen-
sionsusedinthestudyinhotelbrandequity,percep-
tion of value co-creation and wom.
As a result of the measurementmodel carried out,
it was determined that the apparent variables are in
relationwiththeirdependentlatentvariablesandalso
that the relations between all variables are signifi-
cant at thep < 0.05 level and that the covariance val-
ues between variables are lower than <0.85. In order
to elevate the goodness of fit values of the measure-
mentmodel,adjustmentshavebeenmadebetweenthe
acc1 (e15) and acc3 (e17), acc2 (e16) and acc3
(e17)aswellas wom2 (e25)and wom3 (e24),andthe
goodness of fit values were elevated. The goodness of
fit criteria for all the variables for the measurement
model were determined asΔχ
2
= 682.169; df = 195;
χ
2
/df = 3.498; rmsea = 0.084; cfi = 0.941; gfi =
0.845; ifi = 0.942. These results show that the good-
nessoffitvaluesareadequate(Hairetal.,2014).
After the measurement models were confirmed,
the relations between the variables used in the study
were tested through the structural model. Within the
scope of the structural model analysis, 3 different hy-
potheses were analyzed in order to determine the ef-
fects of hotel brand equity on the perception of value
co-creation and wom along with perception of value
Hotelbrand
equity
Perceptionof
valueco-creation
WOM
+H2=0.885
+H3=0.395
+H1=0.426
+H4=–0.066
Figure2 TheStandardizedValuesDetermined
by the Conceptual Model
co-creation on wom. Another unique aspect of this
study is that 1 (one) hypothesis has been tested in or-
der to determine whether the hotel brand equity and
itseffecton wom hasamoderatorroleonthepercep-
tion of value co-creation. As a result of the structural
model implemented in line with all these aims, the
path diagram regarding the findings is seen in Fig-
ure 2. As seen in the path diagram, it was determined
that there is a positive and significant effect of hotel
brand equity on the perception of value co-creation
and wom. Moreover, it was determined that the per-
ception of value co-creation has a positive and signif-
icant effect on wom. Furthermore, it is seen in the
model in Figure 2 that the variance exploration rate
for the co-creationvariable is 78.4 (R
2
=0.784),and
the variance exploration rate for the wom variable is
63.6(R
2
=0.636).
WhenthetvaluesinTable5areexamined,itisseen
that the significance level is higher than 2.56 and atp
< 0.001 between the hotel brand equity and the per-
ception of value co-creation and wom; and the per-
ception of value co-creation and wom (Schumacker
& Lomax, 2010). Also, when the goodness of fit val-
ues for the path analysis regarding the significance
of the structural model, it is seen that they are:Δχ
2
= 682.169; df = 195; χ
2
/df = 3.498; rmsea = 0.084;
cfi = 0.941; gfi = 0.845; ifi = 0.942 and that these
values are adequate goodness of fit values (Hair et al.,
2014).
When the conceptual model in Figure 2 and the
hypothesis results in Table 5 are examined, it is seen
that the hotel brand equity of the foreigntourists vis-
Academica Turistica, Year14,No.2, December 2021 |1 5 9

Abdullah Uslu andGözde SevalErgün TheModerator Effect
Table5 PathAnalysisandHypothesisResults
Hypotheses PathAnalysis srw t values p Results
+h Hotel BrandEquity→ wom . . .*** Supported
+h Hotel BrandEquity→Perceptionof ValueCo-Creation . . .*** Supported
+h Perceptionof ValueCo-Creation→ wom . . .*** Supported
Notes srw – StandardizedRegression Weights. ***p< 0.001. Goodness-of-fit statistics of path analysis:Δχ
2
=682.169,df
=195,χ
2
/df =3.498, rmsea = 0.084, cfi =0.941, gfi =0.845, ifi = 0.942.
Table6 PathAnalysisResultsShowingtheModerating
Effect(n=358)
Variables β se t
Hotel brandequity(x) .** . .
Percept. ofvalueco-creation(w) .** . .
x.w –.* . –.
Notes R
2
=0.608;**p < 0.001, *p < 0.05, se = stan-
dard error,β = standardized regression coefficients, depen-
dentvariable= wom.
iting hotelenterprisesin Marmarishasa positive and
significanteffecton wom andperceptionofvalueco-
creation (h1:β=0.426,t=3.670,p=0.001;h2:β
=0.885,t = 10.887, p = 0.001). For this reason, the
hypothesesof h1 and h2 formedas‘HotelBrandEq-
uity has a positive and significant effect on wom and
perception of value co-creation’ have been corrobo-
rated. Furthermore, it has been determined that per-
ceptionofvalueco-creationhasapositiveandsignifi-
canteffecton wom (h3:β=0.395,t=3.434,p=0.001).
Therefore,thehypothesis h3,formedas‘Perceptionof
value co-creation has a positive and significant effect
on wom,’ has been corroborated.
Inordertobeabletotestthemoderatorroleof
theperceptionofvalueco-creationontheeffectofho-
tel brand equity on wom, path analysishas been car-
ried out using the amos software. In the path analy-
sisconductedwiththeapparentvariables,themethod
ofcalculatingmaximumlikelihoodhasbeenusedand
its path analysis results are in Table 5. While the val-
uesfortheestimationandthemoderatorvariablewere
standardized beforehand, the values were centralized
in order to minimize the multicollinearity issue. It is
seen that all the estimation variables included in the
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
LowBrandEquity(x)H i g h B r a n d E q u i t y ( x)
Figure3 Graphic Representation of the Moderating Effect
ofthePerceptionof ValueCo-Creation (light–
lowValueCo-Creation (w),dark–highValue
Co-Creation(w))
pathanalysisexplained61(R
2
=0.608)ofthechange
on wom.On wom,ithasbeendeterminedthathotel
brand equity (β=0.438,p < 0.001) and perception of
valueco-creation(β=0.382,p<0.001)haveapositive
and significant effect. It has been ascertained that the
hotelbrandequityandperceptionofvalueco-creation
variables’interactiveeffect(moderatoreffect)issignif-
icant and negative(β=–0.066,p<0.05).
Determining the form and direction of the com-
bined effect of the interaction between hotel brand
equity and perception of value co-creation, in cases
where the hotel brand equity was low and high, the
opinions of those with high and low perception of
value co-creation on wom are shown in Figure 3.
Whether the slopes in Figure 3 differ at a significant
level from the 0 (zero) value, has been tested with a
slopetest.Asaresultoftheslopetest,ithasbeendeter-
minedthatthecorrelationbetweenhotelbrandequity
and wom is both high and that its correlation to the
160 | Academica Turistica, Year14,No. 2,December 2021

Abdullah Usluand Gözde SevalErgün TheModerator Effect
value co-creationis significant and positive (β=0.44,
p<0.001;β=0.38,p<0.001,respectively).Conse-
quently,itisseenthattouristswithhighlevelsofvalue
co-creationperceptioncarrymore wom comparedto
those with low perception of value co-creation when
thereis high hotel brand equity, and hypothesis h4 is
acceptedinthiscase.Accordingtothisresult,itcanbe
said that when hotel managers use the perception of
valueco-creationbytakinghotelbrandequitycharac-
teristics into consideration, they will increase wom.
Furthermore, it is possible to state that although the
relationship between hotel brand equity and wom is
asclaimedinthe h4 hypothesis,accordingtothelev-
elsoftheperceptionofvalueco-creation,thisrelation
is thinning. In other words, according to the findings
obtained,therelationshipbetweenhotelbrandequity
and wom isstrongerintouristswhoattributelowim-
portance to the perception of value co-creation com-
paredtothosewhoattributemoreimportancetoit.
DiscussionandConclusion
As the share of the service sector in the economy
grows, the importance of participatory applications
that are customer-based is gradually increasing. In
Turkey as well, the largest share of the service sector
is held by the tourism sector. The branding efforts of
hotel enterprises as the locomotives of the sector, the
efforttodeterminethevalueperceptionsofcustomers
andtheresultsoftheseeffortsbeingspreadamongthe
customers in a positive way havebecome prioritized.
Accordingtothesourcesobtainedasaresultofthe
literature review carried out what was tested in gen-
eralwaswhetherhotelbrand equity hadany effecton
wom,and no studyhasbeenfound thatsuggeststhat
the perception of value co-creation has a regulating
effect. Therefore, in order to define the relationship
between hotel brand equity, perception of value co-
creationvariableand wom ofthetouristsvisitingho-
telenterprisesinMarmaris,andtodeterminewhether
the perception of value co-creation has a moderator
effect on the relationship between hotel brand equity
and wom, 4 hypotheses were constructed and all of
them have been accepted. That the moderator effect
has been ascertained can be seen as a justification for
thestudyanditsmostprominentcharacteristic.
Four dimensions have been uncovered as a result
of the efa conducted on hotel brand equity. The di-
mensions are conceived as quality, loyalty, brand as-
sociation and brand awareness. As a result of the efa
conducted on the dimensions of perception of value
co-creation, a four-dimensional structure has been
identified involving dialogue, risk, transparency and
access. As a resultofthe subsequently conducted cfa
analyses and second-order cfa analyses, they were
integrated into the model with the names of hotel
brand equity and perception of value co-creation and
theirrelationswiththeothervariableswereexamined.
According to the findings, it has been determined
that tourists’ hotel brand equity increases the percep-
tion of value co-creation and wom. These findings
show similarity to many studies such as Moise et al.
(2019), Sofiane (2019), and González-Mansilla et al.
(2019).Ontheotherhand,ithasbeendeterminedthat
theperceptionofvalueco-creationaffects wom.This
state of affairs correlates with the findings obtained
in Seifert and Kwon’s (2020) study. The result to be
obtained out of the value co-creation perception of
thecustomerswillresultinpositiveornegative wom.
Hotels are primarily obligated to understand the di-
mensionsofhotelbrandequityinordertomakeaccu-
ratediagnosesinthelongrun.Theperceptionofvalue
co-creationformedwithwell-understoodhotelbrand
equity will lead to the forming of positive wom from
theperspectiveofthecustomer.
Lastly,exceptforthefindingsofthestudythatover-
lap with the literature,as a distinctly revealedfinding,
it was seen that the perception of value co-creation
has a negative moderator effect on the effects of ho-
telbrandequityon wom.Hotelenterprisesareoneof
themostimportantcomponentsofthetourismsector.
Duetohotelenterprisesbeinghigh-costbusinesses,it
is necessaryfor them to wish to create a feeling of be-
ing valued for the customer in order to render their
customers loyal to the enterprise. It is evident that
there is perception of value, and sharing their per-
ceptions through wom rapidly as a result of develop-
ing the perception of being valued is quite important
for hotel enterprises in the exponentially challenging
competitive environment of the 21st century.
There are certain limitations in this study. It was
Academica Turistica, Year14,No. 2, December 2021 |16 1

Abdullah Uslu andGözde SevalErgün TheModerator Effect
carried out in the Marmaris destination and only ap-
plied to foreign tourists coming to hotels in the sum-
mer months of the year 2019. It is recommended that
relevantstudiesneedtobecarriedoutsoastoencom-
pass other destinations and also to domestic tourists
in ordertoprovegeneralizable.
References
Aaker,D.A.(1991).Managingbrandequity. Free Press.
Abubakar, M. A. (2016). Does ewom influence destination
trust and travel intention: A medical tourism perspec-
tive.EconomicResearch-EkonomskaIstraživanja,29(1),
598–611.
Akgün, V. Ö., & Akgün, A. (2014). Marka ve Marka Değeri
Olgusu: Marka Değerinin Tespitine Yönelik Bir Uygu-
lama.SelçukÜniversitesiSosyalveTeknikAraştırmalar
Dergisi,8,1–13.
Albarq,A.N.(2014).Measuringtheimpactsofonlineword-
of-mouthontourists’attitudeandintentionstovisitJor-
dan:Anempiricalstudy.InternationalBusinessResearch,
7(1),14–22.
Alves, H., Fernandes, C., & Raposo, M. (2016). Value co-
creation:Concept and contextsof application andstudy.
JournalofBusinessResearch,69(5),1626–1633.
Anderson,E.W. (1998).Customersatisfactionandword-of-
mouth.JournalofServiceResearch,1(1),5–17.
Ansary,A.,&Hashim,N.M.H.N.(2018).Brandimageand
equity: The mediating role of brand equity drivers and
moderating effects of product type and word of mouth.
ReviewofManagerialScience,12(4),969–1002.
Bailey, R., & Ball, S. (2006). An exploration of the meaning
ofhotelbrandequity.ServiceIndustriesJournal,26(1),15–
38.
Barlow, J., & Moller, C. (2008).HerŞikâyetBirArmağandır.
RotaYayınları.
Boo,S.,Busser,J.,&Baloglu.S.(2009).Amodelofcustomer-
basedbrandequityanditsapplicationtomultipledesti-
nations.TourismManagement,30(2),219–231.
Broyles,S.A.,Leingpibul,T .,Ross,R.H.,&Foster ,B.M.
(2010). Brand equity’s antecedent/Consequence rela-
tionships in cross-cultural settings.Journal of Product
&BrandManagement,19(3),159–169.
Bryman,A.,&Cramer,D.(2001).Quantitativedataanalysis
withspssRelease10forWindows. Routledge.
Byrne,B.M.(2010).Structuralequationmodelingwithamos
(2nded.).Routledge.
Cabiddu,F.,Lui,T.-W .,&Piccoli,G.(2013).Managingvalue
co-creation in the tourism industry.AnnalsofTourism
Research,42, 86–107.
Cantallops,A.S.(2019).The impactof valueco-creationon
hotel brand equity and customer satisfaction.Tourism
Management,75(3),51–65.
Chathoth,P .K.,Ungson,G.R.,Harrington,R.J.,&Chan,
E. S. W. (2016). Co-creation and higher order customer
engagementinhospitalityandtourismservices.Interna-
tionalJournalofContemporaryHospitalityManagement,
28(2),222–245.
Chekalina,T.,Fuchs,M.,&Lexhagen,M.(2014).Avalueco-
creation perspective on Customer-Based Brand Equity
model for tourism destinations – A case from Sweden.
Matkailututkimus,10(1),8–24.https://journal.fi
/matkailututkimus/article/view/90897
Chekalina,T.,Fuchs,M.,&Lexhagen,M.(2018).Customer-
based destination brand equity modeling: The role of
destinationresources,valueformoney,andvalueinuse.
JournalofTravelResearch,57(1),31–51.
Ch o u ,C .Y . ,H u a n g ,C .H . ,&Li n,T .(20 18).Or g a ni za-
tional intellectual capital and its relation to frontline
service employee innovative behavior: Consumer value
co-creation behavior as a moderator. ServiceBusiness,
12(4),663–684.
Çınar,K.,Parlakkaya,R.,&Bilim,Y.(2019).TüketiciTemelli
Marka Denkliği Unsurlarının Marka Bağlılığına Etk-
isi: Otel İşletmeleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma.Journal of
TourismandGastronomyStudies,7(4),2481–2512.
Davras,Ö.(2019).TüketiciTemelliDestinasyonMarkaDeğe-
riModellemesi:IspartaDestinasyonuÖrneği.Seyahatve
OtelİşletmeciliğiDergisi,16(3),515–532.
Dedeoğlu,B.B.,Niekerk,M.V .,W einland,J.,&Celuch,K.
(2019). Re-conceptualizing customer-based destination
brand equity.JournalofDestinationMarketing&Man-
agement,11, 211–230.
Dellarocas, C. (2003). The digitization of word of mouth:
Promiseandchallengesofonline feedbackmechanisms.
ManagementScience,49(10),1407–1424.
Ergün, G. S., & Akgün, V. Ö. (2016).AğızdanAğıza İletişim
KavramınınÖnemiÜzerineKuramsalBirÇalışma:Tur-
izm Araştırmaları İncelemesi.SelçukÜniversitesiSosyal
veTeknikAraştırmalarDergisi,12, 152–175.
Forgacs,G.(2003).Brandassetequilibriuminhotelmanage-
ment.InternationalJournalofContemporaryHospitality
Management,15(6),340–342.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and mea-
surement error.JournalofMarketingResearch,18(1),39–
50.
FríasJamilena,D.M.,Peña,A.I.P .,&Rodriguez-Molina,M.
A. R. (2017). The effect of value-creation on consumer-
162 | Academica Turistica, Year14,No. 2,December 2021

Abdullah Usluand Gözde SevalErgün TheModerator Effect
based destination brand equity.JournalofTravelRe-
search,56(8),1011–1031.
García,J.A.C.,Galindo,A.D.V .,&Suárez,R.M.(2018).
The effect of online and offline experiential marketing
on brand equity in the hotel sector.SpanishJournalof
Marketing–esic,22 (1),22–41.
González-Mansilla,O.,Berenguer-Contri,G.,&Serra-Can-
tallops, A. (2019). The impact of value co-creation on
hotel brand equity and customer satisfaction.Tourism
Management,75(3),51–65.
Gremler,D.(1995).Word-of-mouthcommunication:Causes
andconsequences.MarketingReview,15(3),54–58.
Grönroos,C.(2000).Servicemanagementandmarketing:A
customerrelationshipmanagementapproach (2nd ed.).
JohnWiley&Sons.
Grönroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A
criticalanalysis.MarketingTheory,11(3),279–301.
Hair,J.,Black,W .,Babin,B.,&Anderson,R.(2014).Multi-
variatedataanalysis (7thed.).PearsonEducation.
Huang,Z.J.,&Cai,L.A.(2015).Modellingconsumer-based
brand equity for multinational hotel brands – When
hosts become guests.TourismManagement,46(C), 431–
443.
Jalilvand,M.R.,&Samiei,N.(2012).Theimpactofelec-
tronic word of mouth on a tourism destination choice.
InternetResearch,22(5),591–612.
Kalaycı,Ş.(2008).spssUygulamalıÇokDeğişkenliİstatistik
Teknikleri (3rded.).AsilYayınDağıtım.
Kayaman,R.,&Arasli,H.(2007).Customerbasedbrandeq-
uity:Evidencefromthehotelindustry.ManagingService
Quality,17(1),92–109.
Keller,K.L.(1993).Conceptualizing,measuring,andmanag-
ing customer-based brand equity.JournalofMarketing,
57(1),1–22.
Kim, H., & Kim, W. G. (2005). The relationship between
brand equity and firms’ performance in luxury hotels
andrestaurants.TourismManagement,26(4),549–560.
Kim,S.,Schuckert,M.,Im,H.H.,&Elliot,S.(2017).Anin-
terregionalextensionof destinationbrand equity: From
Hong Kong to Europe.JournalofVacationMarketing,
23(4),277–294.
Kotler,P. (2000).Marketingmanagement.Prentice Hall.
Laczniak,R.N.,DeCarlo,T.E.,&Ramaswami,S.N.(2001).
Consumers’responses to negative word-of-mouth com-
munication: An attribution theory perspective.Journal
ofConsumerPsychology,11(1),57–73.
Lee,H.A.,Law,R.,&Murphy,J.(2011).Helpfulreviewers
in Tripadvisor, an online travel community. Journal of
Travel&TourismMarketing,28(7), 675–688.
Maduka, O. B. (2016). Effects of customer value co-creation
on customer loyaltyin the Nigerianservice industry.In-
ternationalJournalofBusinessandManagement,11(12),
77–82.
Marangoz,A.Y .,&Aydın,A.Ö.(2021).MarkaOtantikliği
ve Marka Sadakati Arasındaki İlişkide Marka Aşkının
DüzenleyiciRolü.PazarlamavePazarlamaAraştırmaları
Dergisi,14(1),83–112.
Moise,M.S.,Gil-Saura,I.,Seric,M.,&Molina,M.E.R.
(2019). Influence of environmental practices on brand
equity,satisfactionandwordofmouth.JournalofBrand
Management, 26(3). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-019-
00160-y
Murtiasih,S.,Sucherly,S.,&Siringoringo,H.(2014).Impact
ofcountryoforiginandwordofmouth onbrandequity.
MarketingIntelligence&Planning,32(5),616–629.
Pike,S.(2009).Destinationbrandpositionsofacompetitive
set of near-home destinations. Tourism Management,
30(6),857–866.
Pike, S. (2010). Destination branding case study: Tracking
brand equity for an emerging destination between 2003
and 2007.JournalofHospitalityandTourismResearch,
34(1),124–139.
Pike, S., & Bianchi, C. (2016). Destination brand equity for
Australia: Testing a model of cbbe in short-haul and
long-haul markets.JournalofHospitality&TourismRe-
search,40(1),114–134.
Prasad, K., & Dev, C. S. (2000). Managing hotel brand
equity: Cornell Hotel and Restaurant. Administration
Quarterly,41(3),22–31.
Prebensen,N.K.,Kim,H.L.,&Uysal,M.(2016).Cocreation
asmoderatorbetweentheexperiencevalueandsatisfac-
tion relationship.JournalofTravelResearch,55 (7), 934–
945.
Schumacker,R.E.,&Lomax,R.G.(2010).Abeginner’sguide
tostructuralequationmodeling (3rded.).Routledge.
Seifert,C.,&Kwon,W .(2020).snsewomsentiment:Im-
pacts on brand value co-creation and trust.Marketing
Intelligence&Planning,38(1),89–102.
Seric, M., & Gil-Saura, I. (2019). Understanding brand eq-
uity in hotel firms: Whatisthe role of brand loyaltyand
satisfaction?InternationalJournalofContemporaryHos-
pitalityManagement,31(9),3526–3546.
Seric,M.,Gil-Saura,I.,&Mikulic,J.(2017).Customer-based
brand equity building: Empirical evidence from Croat-
ian upscale hotels.JournalofVacationMarketing,23 (2),
133–144.
Seric,M.,Mikulic,J.,&Gil-Saura,I.(2018).Exploringre-
lationships between customer-based brand equity and
Academica Turistica, Year 14,No. 2,December 2021 |16 3

Abdullah Uslu andGözde SevalErgün TheModerator Effect
its drivers and consequences in the hotel context: An
impact-asymmetryassessment.CurrentIssuesinTourism,
21(14),1621–1643.
Sijoria, C., Mukherjee, S., & Datta, B. (2019). Impact of the
antecedents of electronic word of mouth on consumer
based brand equity: A study on the hotel industry.Jour-
nalofHospitalityMarketing&Management,28(1),1–27.
Sofiane,L.(2019).Theimpactofconsumer-basedbrandeq-
uity on word-of-mouth behavior.InternationalJournal
ofBusinessandSocialScience,10(4),75–85.
Sotiriadis,M.D .,&Z yl,C.V .(2013).Electronicword-of
mouthandonlinereviewsintourismservices:Theuseof
twitter by tourists.ElectronicCommerceResearch,13(1),
103–124.
Sürücü, Ö., Öztürk, Y., Okumuş, F., & Bilgihan, A. (2019).
Brandawareness,image,physicalqualityandemployee
behaviorasbuildingblocksofcustomer-basedbrandeq-
uity: Consequences in the hotel context.JournalofHos-
pitalityandTourismManagement,40(3),114–124.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Usingmultivariate
statistics(5thed.).PearsonEducation.
Uslu, A., Ergün, G. S., & Karabulut, A. N. (2020). Otel İşlet-
melerinde Marka Denkliğinin Müşteri Memnuniyeti
ÜzerindekiEtkisi:GüvenDeğişkenininAracıRolü.Türk
TurizmAraştırmalarıDergisi,4(3),2264–2281.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to new dominant
logic.JournalofMarketing,68(1),1–17.
Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value
and value co-creation: A service systems and service
logic perspective.EuropeanManagementJournal,26(3),
145–152.
Xu,J.B.,&Chan,A.(2010).Aconceptualframeworkofhotel
experience and customer-based brand equity: Some re-
search questionsandimplications.InternationalJournal
ofContemporaryHospitalityManagement,22(2),174–193.
Xu,F.,Bai,Y.,&Li,S.(2019).Brandawareness,image,phys-
ical quality and employee behavior as building blocks of
customer-basedbrandequity:Consequencesinthehotel
context.JournalofHospitalityandTourismManagement,
40(3),114–124.
Yang,Y.,Liu,X.,&Li,J.(2015).Howcustomerexperienceaf-
fects the customer-based brand equity for tourism des-
tinations.JournalofTravel&TourismMarketing,32 (1),
97–113.
Yazgan,H.İ.,Kethüda,Ö.,&Çatı,K.(2014).TüketiciTemelli
Marka Değerinin Ağızdan Ağza Pazarlamaya Etkisi.
CumhuriyetÜniversitesiİktisadiveİdariBilimlerDergisi,
15(1),237–252.
Y oo,B.,&Donthu,N.(2001).Developingandvalidatinga
multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale.
JournalofBusinessResearch,52(1),1–14.
Zeithaml,V.,Berry,L.L.,&Parasuraman,A.(1996).Thebe-
havioralconsequencesofservicequality.JournalofMar-
keting,60(2),31–46.
164 | Academica Turistica, Year14,No. 2, December 2021