Identifying online user discourses triggered by destination stakeholder reactions

Abstract

Purpose

Previous research acknowledges the importance of stakeholders for destination branding. However, there is a lack of studies examining which specific online user discourses are triggered by stakeholder responses to destination brand communication. To address this gap, the purpose of this study is to analyze online user discourses initiated by stakeholder’s reactions to a destination image video and thus enhance knowledge on brand communication and management.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors investigated 2,187 online comments to 19 medial stakeholder reactions to a destination management organization (DMO) image video both by running a manual as well as a software-based content analysis. The explorative empirical study identifies seven major categories reflecting online user discourses triggered by stakeholder reactions to destination brand communication.

Findings

The explorative study indicates that stakeholder reactions to destination brand communication trigger online comments evolving within both the inner and outer tourism system. The discourse subjects, in turn, reflect both user-generated content of brand cocreation and brand codestruction. The findings expand literature in that previous studies on brand cocreation mainly refer to service encounters.

Practical implications

By identifying which online user discourses are triggered by stakeholder reactions to DMO brand communication, the authors provide managerial implications. Specifically, the authors suggest guidelines for all stages of destination communication campaigns to support online user discourses reflecting brand value cocreation and preventing brand value codestruction.

Originality/value

The study responds to a lack of research on online user discourses initiated by stakeholder reactions to DMO brand communication. Contrary to previous studies, the authors identify specific online user discourses relating not only to the inner but also to the outer tourism interest system. Revealed discourses, in turn, reflect brand cocreation and brand codestruction.

目的

先前的研究确认了利益相关者对于目的地品牌塑造的重要性。然而, 目前缺乏研究探讨利益相关者对目的地品牌传播的反应, 会引发哪些特定的线上使用者论述。针对这个缺口, 本研究分析由利益相关者对目的地形象影片的反应所引发的线上使用者论述, 进而增进品牌传播与管理的知识。

设计/方法/途径

作者通过手动和软件内容分析, 调查了 2,187 条在线评论, 涉及 19 个媒体利益相关者对目的地管理组织形象视频的反应。这项探索性实证研究确定了七个主要类别, 反映了利益相关者对目的地品牌传播的反应所引发的在线用户讨论。

研究结果

本探索性研究表明, 利益相关者对目的地品牌传播的反应, 引发了在旅游系统内部和外部演变的在线评论。话语主体反过来反映了用户生成的品牌共创和品牌共建内容。 以往关于品牌共创的研究主要涉及服务接触, 而我们的研究结果拓展了这一研究领域。

实际意义

通过确定利益相关者对目的地管理组织品牌传播的反应引发的在线用户话语, 我们提供了管理方面的启示。具体来说, 我们为目的地传播活动的各个阶段提出了指导方针, 以支持反映品牌价值共创和防止品牌价值共毁的在线用户话语。

原创性/价值

我们的研究回应了由利益相关者对目的地管理组织品牌传播的反应所引发的线上使用者论述研究的缺乏。与先前的研究相反, 我们发现特定的线上使用者论述不仅与内部旅游利益体系有关, 也与其外部有关。所揭示的论述反过来反映了品牌共创和品牌共建。

Objetivo

Investigaciones anteriores reconocen la importancia de las partes interesadas en la creación de marcas de destino. Sin embargo, faltan estudios que examinen si los discursos específicos de los usuarios en línea son desencadenados por las respuestas de las partes interesadas a la comunicación de la marca de destino. Para colmar esta laguna, el presente estudio analiza los discursos de los usuarios en línea iniciados por las reacciones de los grupos de interés a un vídeo de imagen de un destino, mejorando con esto los conocimientos sobre comunicación y gestión de marcas.

Diseño/metodología/enfoque

Los autores investigan 2.187 comentarios en línea a 19 reacciones de grupos de interés mediáticos a un vídeo de la imagen de una OMD mediante un análisis de contenido tanto manual como basado en software. El estudio empírico explorativo identifica siete categorías principales que reflejan los discursos de los usuarios en línea desencadenados por las reacciones de las partes interesadas a la comunicación de la marca de destino.

Resultados

El estudio exploratorio indica que las reacciones de las partes interesadas a la comunicación de la marca del destino desencadenan comentarios en línea que evolucionan dentro del sistema turístico interno y externo. A su vez, los temas del discurso reflejan tanto el contenido generado por los usuarios como la cocreación y la codestrucción de la marca. Nuestros hallazgos amplían la literatura en el sentido de que los estudios anteriores sobre cocreación de marcas se refieren principalmente a encuentros de servicios.

Implicaciones prácticas

Al identificar qué discursos en línea de los usuarios desencadenan las reacciones de las partes interesadas a la comunicación de marca de los OMD, aportamos implicaciones para la gestión. En concreto, sugerimos directrices para todas las fases de las campañas de comunicación de los destinos, con el fin de apoyar los discursos en línea de los usuarios que reflejan la cocreación del valor de la marca y evitar la codestrucción de dicho valor.

Originalidad/valor

Nuestro estudio responde a la falta de investigación sobre los discursos en línea de los usuarios iniciados por las reacciones de las partes interesadas a la comunicación de marca de las OMD. A diferencia de estudios anteriores, identificamos discursos específicos de usuarios en línea relacionados no sólo con el sistema de intereses turísticos interno, sino también con el externo. Los discursos revelados reflejan a su vez la cocreación y la codestrucción de la marca.

Citation

Pikkemaat, B., Pachucki, C. and Scholl-Grissemanne, U. (2024), "Identifying online user discourses triggered by destination stakeholder reactions", Tourism Review, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-05-2024-0445

1. Introduction

Online media have changed destination brand communication such that multiple stakeholders have emerged as content- and brand-cocreators (Buhalis and Foerste, 2015). Thus, recent research broadly acknowledges the need to adjust brand communication to the new online media era (Li et al., 2023). Stakeholder engagement in online communication often involves providing feedback through commenting on various types of online content, such as digital newspaper articles, videos and social media posts. Previous studies reveal that online user discourses not only impact brand images. On a larger scale they also shape public attitudes, opinions and perceptions (e.g. Sparks et al., 2013; Tran and Rudolf, 2022; Uşaklı et al., 2017; Ziegele et al., 2017).

Tourism research highlights the impact of destination brand communication on consumers’ (i.e. tourists’) perceptions and behaviors, such as booking behavior and perceived destination image (e.g. Kumar et al., 2016; Leung and Jiang, 2018; Xiang and Gretzel, 2010). Nevertheless, consumers represent just one segment of the various stakeholders involved in a tourism destination. For instance, farmers, locals and public institutions are also integral components of the tourism destination system, and therefore, they respond to destination brand communication through online platforms, such as online videos or online media articles. While the significance of stakeholder reactions in online communication for destination brand cocreation has been recognized in current research (Leal et al., 2022; Perkins et al., 2020), there is a lack of research on consumer discourses resulting from stakeholder responses to the brand communication of a destination management organization (DMO) (Golestaneh et al., 2021; Ziegele et al., 2017).

Although the DMOs’ brand communication itself plays a significant role in shaping tourist perceptions and behavior, the online content provided by other stakeholders also contributes to this process. As a result, several research gaps emerge:

First, prior studies have focused on evaluating the effectiveness and influence of content created by firms and users (e.g. Kaosiri et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2016). However, there is a gap in the literature regarding the specific examination of online discourses sparked by stakeholders’ responses to DMO brand communication. Second, previous studies mainly investigate the impact of user-generated content on brand-related perceptional and behavioral variables, such as brand image or visit intention (e.g. Hong and Cameron, 2018; Larson and Salvador, 2021). Yet, there is a gap in the literature regarding the exploration of more general discourses, such as public opinions and values, that may be activated. Third, previous studies agree on the importance of involving various stakeholders into communication, since a destination brand constitutes the interaction of culture, identities and images. Thus, the overall destination experience depends on various stakeholders (e.g. Garcia et al., 2012; Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2012; Nguyen et al., 2021). However, research mainly addresses guidelines for successful collaboration (Perkins et al., 2020), while missing to comprehensively grasp the potential consequences of insufficient stakeholder involvement into DMO communication. Fourth, previous studies on brand cocreation often refer to tourism service encounters (e.g. Buhalis et al., 2020; Camilleri and Neuhofer, 2017) or specific perspectives. For instance, Leal et al. (2022) investigate place brand cocreation from the perspective of vendors (e.g. wine, cheese), a case study of Casais and Monteiro (2019) explores city brand cocreation by residents’ involvement and George et al. (2021) focus on the perspective of travel influencers. Contrary, studies investigating more generic discourses reflecting brand value cocreation and destruction are scant.

To address these research gaps, this study investigates online user comments triggered by stakeholder reactions to DMO brand communication. Specifically, we aim to identify subjects of online user discourses which can be both cocreative and codestructive for destination brands. We, therefore, define the following research question:

RQ1.

Which online user discourses are triggered by stakeholder reactions to destination brand communication?

In response to this question, we define the concept of destination stakeholders in the context of our research. We then discuss how destination brand communication is linked to brand value cocreation and brand value codestruction. Subsequently, we introduce the concept of online user discourses in the vein of user-generated content. The empirical part of our study then identifies online user discourses triggered by stakeholders’ reactions to a specific destination image video of the Austrian tourism destination Tyrol. By conducting an exploratory qualitative study, we contribute to current literature on destination brand communication. Specifically, we aim to demonstrate the multi-dimensional discourses which can (un)-intentionally emerge by DMO brand communication and subsequently reflect both brand value cocreation and brand value codestruction.

2. Literature review

2.1 Destination stakeholders

Stakeholders are individuals and groups that affect or are affected by an organization’s actions and behaviors (Freeman, 1984). The broad definition results in a high number of stakeholders going far beyond individuals or groups formally connected to an organization (Sheehan and Ritchie, 2005). Previous literature provides various stakeholder frameworks. Freeman (1984) distinguishes between primary and secondary stakeholders. Within tourism research, Bieger and Beritelli (2013) differentiate between stakeholders of the inner (e.g. hotels, tourists) and outer (e.g. farmers, political parties) tourism interest system. In contrast, Goeldner and Ritchie (2005) categorize into four primary segments: tourists, travel product and service providers, government and residents. Tourism destinations’ characteristics, such as being multiorganizational, mean that DMOs influence and are influenced by a variety of stakeholders (Sheehan and Ritchie, 2005). Establishing a strong brand and effective communication are essential responsibilities of a DMO, necessitating alignment between primary stakeholders (such as tourists) and secondary stakeholders (such as those in the agriculture sector). Hankinson (2004) argues that a destination brand’s success depends on its core (personality and positioning) and further on stakeholder relations. This is in line with Tøttenborg et al. (2022) stating that a DMO as official destination brand authority creates and communicates the brand in cooperation with various stakeholders. Thus, stakeholders are part of the brand, which ideally also reflects their values (Eshuis and Edwards, 2013; Kavaratzis, 2012; Tøttenborg et al., 2022).

2.2 Brand value cocreation and codestruction in tourism research

Our research draws on the notion of service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2007), such that value is always cocreated by and with stakeholders. Online platforms, such as social media or online newspapers allow online users to react to content (e.g. liking, commenting and sharing), which advances them to value cocreators (George et al., 2021; Kavaratzis, 2012). Guan et al. (2020) claim that value cocreation in tourism is inseparable of the interplay of various stakeholders such as tourists/consumers, tourism companies and local authorities. Previous research on destination brand communication also agrees on the relevance of stakeholders for brand co-creation (Casais and Monteiro, 2019; Eshuis and Edwards, 2013; Leal et al., 2022; Perkins et al., 2020).

Notably, if value can be cocreated by interactions, there is an inherent possibility that value can also be codestroyed (Plé and Chumpitaz Cáceres, 2010). Such diminution of value can be coined as value codestruction. Plé and Chumpitaz Cáceres (2010, p. 431) define value codestruction “as an interactional process between service systems that results in a decline in at least one of the systems’ well-being (which, given the nature of a service system, can be individual or organizational).” Value cocreation and value codestruction are a matter of (in-) congruent expectations about how available resources should be used (ibid). Simply stated, tourism stakeholder interactions can result in suboptimal outcomes (Sthapit et al., 2023).

While cocreation is a widely established concept in tourism research, research on value codestruction has only recently gained momentum (Sthapit et al., 2023). For example, Dolan et al. (2019) investigate how tourism organizations should respond to complaining practices to foster cocreation and avoid codestruction. They highlight the notion of consumers being the ultimate determinators of value. Another study by Guan et al. (2020) highlights the need to develop a scale to measure codestruction behavior in tourism. Value codestruction was also extensively discussed in the context of the sharing economy, specifically regarding the practices of Airbnb and Uber (Buhalis et al., 2020; Camilleri and Neuhofer, 2017; Kim et al., 2022; Sthapit et al., 2023) and tourists’ negative word-of-mouth practices (Arica et al., 2022; Gkritzali et al., 2020). While these studies focused on value codestruction in tourism service encounters, our research extends the literature by considering brand value codestruction reflected by stakeholder triggered online user discourses.

2.3 Online user discourses and user-generated brand content

Online technologies have blurred the boundaries between consumers and providers (Guan et al., 2020). Online media (e.g. online newspapers) stimulate and facilitate resource-integrations such that they go beyond the dyadic form of consumer-company communication and allow consumers to communicate with other stakeholders about organizations. Online technologies increasingly allow consumers to publish content, react to digital posts and participate in public communication, which results in user-generated content (Lu and Stepchenkova, 2015). Online comments, whether they are in response to professional or nonprofessional online content, are among the most widely produced as well as consumed forms of user-generated content (Hong and Cameron, 2018). Single comments result in online discourses, which reflect and impact online user attitudes (George et al., 2021; Larson and Salvador, 2021).

By generating discourses, online users advance to brand cocreators (Muntinga et al., 2011). Subsequently, “brands are increasingly the product of people’s conversations in social networks rather than marketing strategies alone” (Lund et al., 2020, p. 1057). Previous studies reveal that user-generated content can reveal both brand cocreation and codestruction (Arica et al., 2022; Buhalis et al., 2020; Rydén et al., 2019; Scholl-Grissemann et al., 2020; Sthapit et al., 2023). Consequently, users share not only favorable viewpoints and experiences but also convey unfavorable ones. Brand value cocreation and brand value codestruction are not mutually exclusive but evolve on a brand-value continuum, meaning that “…some aspects of value promised and expected may still be realized” (Lund et al., 2020, p. 1508) while others diminish. Although brand value cocreation and brand value codestruction can coexist simultaneously for several actors within the tourism interest system (Lund et al., 2020), research on brand value codestruction in destination branding is scarce.

For tourism brand communication, online discourses as a form of user-generated content are relevant for several reasons. First, consumers increasingly hear and learn about tourism destinations by cocreated contents (e.g. social media and online comments). Compared to professional brand-generated content user comments are perceived as trustworthy and unbiased, which further explains their persuasiveness (Hong and Cameron, 2018; Larson and Salvador, 2021). Second, given the multiorganizational nature of destinations various stakeholders participate in online communication (Guan et al., 2020; Oliveira and Panyik, 2015). Identifying both cocreative and codestructive content triggered by destination stakeholders is, therefore, important for improving quality (of communication processes) in tourism interest systems (Guan et al., 2020). Third, user discourses reflect public opinions and perceptions. Thus, they also gain importance as an approach to analyze (brand) images and performances (Saydam et al., 2022; Sulu et al., 2022). Therefore, destination marketers must understand online commenting mechanisms and their effects thoroughly (Larson and Salvador, 2021).

3. Methods

3.1 Research context

We selected an image video of the tourism destination Tyrol entitled “Come as you are – in Tyrol everyone is welcome” as specific research context (Cannes Corporate, 2022). The main character in the video is a Krampus [1], who finds a girl’s glove in alpine winter mountains. Further down the mountain, the Krampus sees the glowing lights of a mountain hut in the evening darkness. He makes his way down to the hut, to bring the girl back its glove. Entering the hut surrounded by skeptical looks of the guests sitting at the fire and drinking beer, he orders a coffee with oat milk (instead of traditional cow milk). The image video (1:25 min) was part of a destination brand campaign in winter season 2021/2022 addressing the target group of Alps affine tourists. The video pursues two major objectives. First, it should portray destinations’ hospitality and openness to all people independently from their needs and preferences. Second, the ordering of oat milk instead of cow milk was also intended to draw attention to and raise awareness of changing consumer behavior (e.g. increasing demand of vegan products), both internally and externally of the destination (Tirol Werbung, 2023).

Two major reasons explain the selection of the Austrian tourism destination Tyrol as research context. First, with more than 12 Mio. arrivals and 48 Mio. overnight stays Tyrol is Austria’s leading tourism destination (Land Tirol, 2023). Second, regarding tourism structure, governance and tourism products (e.g. hiking and skiing), it represents a typical alpine community model destination with different stakeholders (Hetzenauer et al., 2022). The specific image video triggered controversial reactions of various destination stakeholders. Responses to the video were diverse both in terms of reacting stakeholders and rating of the video. Solely in print media, the video reached six million readers (Tirol Werbung, 2023). It further attracted attention in the media industry as it was for instance awarded with a “silver dolphin” at the Cannes Corporate Media and TV Awards in 2022 (Cannes Corporate, 2022). On the other hand, local tourism stakeholders (e.g. the chamber of agriculture) reacted with irritation arguing that the campaign is inappropriate and contradicts the destination’s traditional personality.

3.2 Data analysis

After defining the research context, we randomly selected 19 posts (i.e. online media reports) from online platforms as stakeholder reactions to the image video. Specifically, these had to meet three criteria. First, reports had to explicitly name the video. Second, they had to cover destination stakeholder reactions to the video (e.g. interview with a farmers or political representatives). Third, they had to be published on online platforms allowing user comments (social media, online newspaper platforms). In total, there were 3,473 online comments on these 19 media reports. Comments empty of discourse (e.g. only emojis, links and tags) were excluded resulting in a final sample of 2,187 online comments.

We first used the qualitative analysis software MAXQDA and inductively categorized data. In addition, we secondly ran Leximancer to further confirm the categories, in this specific case reflecting major discourse lines. As a text analysis software Leximancer identifies key terms, structures data by identification of patterns and quantification, and visualizes categories as well as their relations (Leximancer, 2023).

4. Results

Results of both analyses reveal high agreement in that data can be classified into seven main categories reflecting discourse lines: destination marketing, perception of destination, farmers, politics, milk and milk alternatives, environment and animals and health. Table 1 shows the categories with codes and exemplary online comments.

Figure 1, based on Leximancer, further graphically illustrates the major online discourses triggered by the medial stakeholder reactions to the DMO image video.

First, stakeholder reactions to the image video trigger online discourses on destination marketing. On the one hand, online users positively comment on the general tourism advertising in the destination as well as the specific image video. On the other hand, comments reflect criticism on the reaction of the DMO to the disapproval of stakeholders of the video. Specifically, the DMO is criticized for the apology and/or the withdrawal of the video after critical voices among stakeholders (farmers, chamber of agriculture) emerged. In this discourse line, online users critically mention the impact of social values and/or political impact on destination marketing and management. Second, data analysis reveals the category perception of destination, in which comments, in turn, focus on three codes: tradition, narrow-mindedness, making fun of the destination. All these subcategories reflect a more negative traditional and narrow-minded image of the destination. The criticism especially addresses the politicians in charge. Third, both analyses reveal that farmers as stakeholders of a tourism destination represent a relevant discourse line. The category farmers can, in turn, be divided into four subcategories: dairy farming industry, farmers problems, agricultural subsidies and malicious comments on farmers in general. Fourth, a stream of comments can be summarized among the category politics, in which online users, in turn, debate three main topics. The first code refers to comments on general politics in the destination, such as political power and political interest groups. The second code relates to the close narrow-minded interaction of single political actors lacking an open mindset, while the third subcategory makes fun of the entire (political) debate. Fifth, the medial reaction of destination stakeholders to the image campaign triggered online users to discuss milk and milk alternatives, which can be explained by the presentation of oat milk instead of cow milk in the image video. Specifically, results reveal comments related to cow milk, plant alternatives (above all oat milk), the question which of these products deserve the label milk, as well as individual consumer preferences. Sixth, a major discourse line triggered by the stakeholder reactions to the destination image video is the topic of environment and animals. In this category, in turn, two major debates occur. On the one hand, many comments center on animals, specifically on the suffering of dairy cows as well as the transport of male calves to countries abroad since they cannot be used for milk production. On the other hand, online user comments reflect concerns on the negative impact of the dairy industry on the environment (e.g. CO₂ emission, climate change). Seventh, a cluster of comments can be summarized among the category health. As also demonstrated by Table 1 comments within this topic refer to three subcategories: general health aspects of milk and milk alternatives, nutrition with a focus on proteins, as well as allergies.

Summing up, findings reveal that online content covering stakeholder reactions to destination brand communication triggers discourses in two major dimensions. On the one hand, online user comments directly address the destination (categories destination marketing and perception of destination). On the other hand, comments deal with more generic attitudes and perceptions, although the image video was tourism intended (categories farmers, politics, milk and milk alternatives, environment and animals, health).

5. Discussion

Our study aimed to identify online user discourses triggered by stakeholder reactions to destination brand communication. Overall, we conclude two major results: first, this study showcases multi-dimensional discourse subjects which can (un)-intentionally emerge by stakeholder reactions to DMO brand communication. Online user discourses on destination marketing and perception of destination were expectable. Contrary, comments on farmers, politics, milk and milk alternatives, environment and animals and health are of more generic, unexpected nature. Thus, the discourses identified do not only address stakeholders and subjects of the inner tourism system but also reflect discussions beyond tourism in the outer system. This, in turn, reflects the complexity of tourism destination systems and their brand communication. Second, the explorative research indicates that stakeholder reactions to destination brand communication trigger positive, negative and neutral online user comments within all discourse categories. While positive comments support destination brand cocreation, negative comments constitute a form of brand codestruction. Thus, our findings further enrich research on brand cocreation and brand codestruction. These findings enable both theoretical and managerial contributions discussed in the next sections.

5.1 Theoretical implications

Although research agrees on the relevance of stakeholders for destination branding (Leal et al., 2022; Perkins et al., 2020), there is a lack of research on consumer discourses resulting from stakeholder responses to DMO brand communicatio (Golestaneh et al., 2021; Ziegele et al., 2017). Furthermore, previous studies predominantly examine the impact of firm- or stakeholder-generated content on brand-related perceptional and behavioral variables (e.g. brand image and visit intention) (e.g. Hong and Cameron, 2018; Larson and Salvador, 2021), while neglecting what more generic discourses (e.g. public opinions) these contents reflect. In response to these gaps our study identifies that stakeholder reactions to DMO brand communication trigger discourses in seven major categories, specifically destination marketing, perception of destination, farmers, politics, milk and milk alternatives, environment and animals and health. From a broader perspective, these discourse lines can be categorized along the tourism system (Bausch et al., 2021; Bieger and Beritelli, 2013), which deepens our understanding for communication mechanisms within it. As demonstrated by Figure 2 stakeholder reactions to DMO brand communication trigger online discourses on both the inner and outer tourism system.

We identify destination marketing and perception of destination as components of the inner tourism system. On the other hand, discourses about farmers, politics, milk and milk alternatives, health as well as environment and animals are associated with the outer tourism system. Discourses identified within the outer destination system can, in turn, be differentiated into two groups. On the one hand, comments that refer to specific stakeholders, on the other hand, reactions that reflect more generic social opinions and perceptions. DMOs have to achieve both a balance of interest within the inner system of interest and act as a representative of tourism interests vis-à-vis the outer system (Bieger and Beritelli, 2013). In addition, they must consider that their brand communication can also trigger generic values and concerns. Discourse categories such as milk and substitutes or farmers make clear how complex and manifold this task is. While politicians and the chamber of agriculture would have liked to present a traditional image of the destination and its regional products (e.g. the consumption of a traditional product such as cow milk) to potential visitors, the user comments show support for alternative dairy products that stand for a more modern worldview. The conflict about dairy products and possible substitutes can, therefore, also be representative of a conflict between tradition and modernity or between a conflict about self-images and perceptions of others. Given these results we further confirm previous studies (e.g. Mayer et al., 2021) indicating that media discourses can evolve toward wider and contextual levels within both the inner and outer tourism system.

Second, we find that stakeholder reactions to DMO brand communication can trigger both cocreative and codestructive responses. This is relevant in that previous studies (e.g. Buhalis et al., 2020; Camilleri and Neuhofer, 2017; Kim et al., 2022; Sthapit et al., 2023) often refer to value codestruction in tourism service encounters and not to brand codestruction reflected by stakeholder triggered online user discourses. The video was originally targeted to promote the destination hospitableness. However, users’ discourses triggered by stakeholder reactions to the image video partly portrayed a stubborn and old fashioned destination image. Plé and Chumpitaz Cáceres (2010) argue that value codestruction results in a decline of one actors’ well-being. This finding applies well to our research context. Different stakeholders within the tourism interest system experienced both brand value cocreation and brand value codestruction due to the image video featuring oatmilk instead of traditional cows milk. While some stakeholders felt confirmed in their values and perceptions, the media reporting triggered a defensive attitude among other stakeholders (i.e. local authorities) who saw their own values and attitudes called into question. The nature of such responses might also be explained by social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 2004), which is concerned with peoples’ role-related behaviors and determines how people respond to certain events. We conclude that brand value cocreation and brand value codestruction are part of the same coin.

Third, the study contributes to recent publications on “online storms,” emphasizing online media’s role in empowering users to approve or oppose behaviors and actions both of DMOs and stakeholders (Rydén et al., 2019). In line with Lund et al. (2020) we argue that DMOs need to actively set agendas to shape user conversations. Compelling narratives have the power to shape the direction of user discussions, impact values and perceptions and convey the distinct characteristics of the brand (Lund et al., 2020). We further expand literature by demonstrating what insufficient stakeholder involvement into DMO communication can result in. This is of relevance in that previous research mainly addresses guidelines for successful collaboration (Perkins et al., 2020).

5.2 Managerial implications

By identifying which online discourses are triggered by stakeholder reactions to DMO brand communication, we provide specific managerial and marketing implications demonstrated in Table 2. Findings reveal that medial reactions of stakeholders can result in online discourses that go far beyond the inner tourism system. These discourses, in turn, reflect content of brand cocreation and/or codestruction. To support positive comments (e.g. farmers and destination perception) and simultaneously avoid negative comments (e.g. politics and animals), an analysis of interests in the inner and outer destination system, involvement of stakeholders and media training are recommended in the conception stage of destination brand campaigns. In the implementation phase (e.g. after publishing an image video), our results emphasize the importance of campaign monitoring to control online user discourses if necessary. Despite the travel context, discourse subjects identified are partly unexpected and beyond tourism (e.g. generic comments on animal farming or health aspects of milk). Thus, in the evaluation stage of a brand campaign, destination managers should actively implement market research and generate stakeholder feedback for future learnings.

6. Conclusion

Overall, our study demonstrates that brand communication in community model destinations with a variety of stakeholders can initiate online discourses that reflect diverse subjects going far beyond tourism. The online discourses relating to both the inner (e.g. destination marketing) and outer (e.g. farmers, politics) tourism system, in turn, reflect brand cocreation (positive comments) and simultaneously brand codestruction (negative comments). As in any study, our results need to be considered in view of certain limitations.

From a methodological perspective the analysis of online comments does not allow control of the sample. It is unstructured data, which needs to be cleaned and text-mined and thus be prepared for further analysis (Lu and Stepchenkova, 2015; Vriens et al., 2019). In addition, online comments are often characterized by a short text length, which, in turn, limits their informative value (Schreiner et al., 2019). Besides, as typical for single case studies, findings lack generalization.

To deepen our understanding for online user discourses triggered by stakeholder reactions to DMO brand communication, narrative interviews could be carried out. Our findings could further be enhanced by quantitative empirical studies both among (potential) consumers (tourists, online users) and destination stakeholders (e.g. farmers and hotels). Like previous studies (e.g. Pachucki et al., 2022), a quantitative approach could also identify discourse changes (e.g. topics, tonality and emotionality) over the course of time. Research on online behavior triggered by stakeholder reactions to destination brand communication and brand value codestruction in form of user-generated brand content is still scant. Thus, our study serves as a base for future research within this field. We specifically encourage further studies on the relevance of online user discourses and destination stakeholder-triggered brand cocreation and codestruction.

Acknowledgements

Author Contribution: 1. Conception or design of the work: Birgit Pikkemaat, Christoph Pachucki, Ursula Scholl-Grissemann; 2. Data collection: Birgit Pikkemaat, Christoph Pachucki, Ursula Scholl-Grissemann; 3. Data analysis and interpretation: Birgit Pikkemaat, Christoph Pachucki; 4. Drafting the article: Birgit Pikkemaat, Christoph Pachucki, Ursula Scholl-Grissemann; 5. Critical revision of the article: Birgit Pikkemaat, Christoph Pachucki, Ursula Scholl-Grissemann; 6. Final approval of the version to be published: Christoph Pachucki

Figures

Figure 1

Empirical categories based on Leximancer

Figure 2

Stakeholder triggered online discourses along the tourism system

Table 1

Coding template

Discourse category	Codes	Exemplary online comments
Destination marketing	Advertising Reactions of DMO	“This is great advertising for Tyrol advertising! Well done!” (1724) “Ridiculous…the spot was good!” (2480) “Not just the CEO Marketing Manager, but rather Tyrol advertising in general, nourishes the feeling that it is not an independent company but rather a branch of the Tyrolean Chamber of Agriculture.” (898)
Perception of destination	Tradition Narrow-minded Making fun of destination	“Just because something is tradition doesn’t mean you have to obsessively stick to it. It would be good to finally reduce milk production.” (2437) “Pathetic and embarrassing. Tyrol is remarkably backward, even by Austrian standards.” (563) “Feel free to drink your ‘natural’ product. We're just making fun of the narrow-minded Tyrolean officials.” (213)
Farmers	Dairy industry Making fun of farmers Problems of farmers Agricultural subsidies	“Who cares about dairy farmers anymore? Half of the people are lactose intolerant, and milk cannot keep up with a barista of oats.” (2461) “Embarrassing reaction from the farmers and just as embarrassing that they are giving in to this kindergarten level and changing the spot.” (2507) “Agricultural subsidies are not bad in themselves. The distribution is bad. If, as I read elsewhere recently, 10% of farmers collect 90% of the subsidies, something is going wrong.” (75)
Politics	Politics in general Narrow-minded political alliances in the destination Making fun of the whole debate	“They act like this is our biggest problem in the world” (2045) “Not just the CEO Marketing Manager, but rather Tyrol advertising in general, nourishes the feeling that it is not an independent company but rather a branch of the Tyrolean Chamber of Agriculture.” (898) “Extremely shocked at the lack of sensitivity Qat milk, OAT MILK! Mhm,…what are environmental disasters, war, epidemics, the death of dear people and famine in comparison?” (969)
Milk and milk alternatives	Cow’s milk (Plant) milk alternatives Labeling of milk Consumption preferences	“Cow’s milk is a useless product.” (2) “Milk-based cheese, yoghurt and kefir taste better than plant-based products.” (917) “[I] will now switch to oat milk. It’s more ecological and probably healthier too. (377) “[“Milk”] Doesn’t say anything about whether it’s edible or comes from a cow.” (2240)
Environment and animals	Animal suffering Impact on environment (CO2, climate change)	“Plant milk is healthier, better for the climate and no animal has to suffer. Who needs more reasons? Not me.” (1716) “Oat milk causes 75% less CO2 emissions than cow's milk.” (400) “But there is no question that it (cow’s milk) destroys the environment. The massively supernatural livestock farming that we humans now maintain (organic or not) is more harmful to the ozone layer than all cars combined.” (2304)
Health	General health Nutrition (protein) Allergies	“Milk provides fat and protein and was an important part of the diet when there wasn’t much else. This was later successfully reinterpreted as ‘milk is super healthy’, which is simply not true in general.” (1640) “The point is that cow’s milk is often intolerable for adults and also removes calcium during digestion.” (17)

Source:

Table by authors

Table 2

Practical implications to support destination brand cocreation

Practical implications to support destination brand cocreation
Implications for destination brand campaigns
Stage of destination branding campaign	Implications
conception	Analysis of needs and interests of stakeholders in the inner and outer destination system. Actively involving stakeholders into branding and campaign conception (e.g. workshops, meetings) Media training for destination stakeholders (e.g. interview training)
Implementation	Media monitoring (e.g. newspapers, social media) Control of branding (campaign) development
Evaluation	Research among destination stakeholders (e.g. qualitative interviews, survey, workshops) Feedback collection Documentation of learnings

Source:

Table by authors

Note

1 The Krampus represents a half-goat, half-demon figure having its roots in Catholic Christmas. As a counterpart to Saint Nicholas rewarding good behavior, the Krampus punishes bad behavior. Nowadays, the Krampus is still a typical figure in Alpine regions Christmas season (Tikkanen, 2024).