This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 05 December 2014, At: 06:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Travel & Tourism MarketingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttm20

Customer’s Perception of Familiness in TravelExperiencesPilar Presas, Jaume Guia & Dolors MuñozPublished online: 24 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Pilar Presas, Jaume Guia & Dolors Muñoz (2014) Customer’s Perception of Familiness in TravelExperiences, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 31:2, 147-161, DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2014.873307

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2014.873307

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

CUSTOMER’S PERCEPTION OF FAMILINESS INTRAVEL EXPERIENCES

Pilar PresasJaume Guia

Dolors Muñoz

ABSTRACT. Although familiness is a relevant topic for tourism family firms, there is very littleresearch on familiness from either the perspective of the consumer or in tourism firms. To redress thissituation, this paper focuses on understanding how familiness is perceived by customers of tourismfamily businesses. Findings suggest that consumers experience and perceive familiness as a bundle offour distinctive dimensions, which are seen as both differentiating and valuable elements of the travelexperience. Tourism family firms can thus take advantage of their idiosyncratic resources in order tobestow their products with familiness and brand them as such.

KEYWORDS. Familiness, family business, tourism, consumer behavior

INTRODUCTION

Research on family businesses has increasinglygiven importance to the development of the con-cept “familiness.” However, while these studieshave explored and put emphasis on the concep-tualization of familiness and the identification ofits relevant dimensions (Irava & Moores, 2010;Zellweger, Eddleston, & Kellermanns, 2010), allof them take the perspective of the firm. Thismeans they analyze familiness as a constructrepresenting idiosyncratic resources and capabil-ities as seen, developed, and experienced by thefamily owners and the employees of the firm.Instead, this paper analyzes the concept of famili-ness from the standpoint of consumers and aims atfinding out whether customers perceive the

presence of the family in the firm’s identity andhow they experience it and value it.

Familiness is defined as the idiosyncraticbundle of resources and capabilities that afamily firm possesses as a consequence of theinteractions between the family and the businesssystem (Habbershon & Williams, 1999). Mostof these resources and capabilities are found inthe form of human resources and organizationalcapabilities (Irava & Moores, 2010) and thusare only perceived from within the firm byfamily members and employees.

Previous research on the familiness of tour-ism firms focused on how the family who runs abusiness can become part of the product andthus a key element of the experience of custo-mers (Wanhill, 1997). More recently, attention

Pilar Presas is a Graduate Teaching Assistant and PhD Student in the Department of BusinessManagement, University of Girona, Spain (E-mail: pilar.presas@udg.edu).

Jaume Guia is Associate Professor in the Department of Business Management, University of Girona,Spain (E-mail: jaume.guia@udg.edu).

M. Dolors Muñoz Emeritus is Professor, Chair of Family Business in the University of Girona, Spain(E-mail: dolors.munoz@udg.edu).

Address correspondence to: Pilar Presas, Graduate Teaching Assistant and PhD Student, Department ofBusiness Management, University of Girona, Spain. (E-mail: pilar.presas@udg.edu)

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 31:147–161, 2014Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1054-8408 print / 1540-7306 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10548408.2014.873307

147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

06:

31 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

has been paid to the potential that tourismfamily firms have in branding their familiness(Parmentier, 2011; Presas Maynegre, Muñoz, &Guia, 2011). Nonetheless, a thorough concep-tualization of the topic is still missing.

Therefore, we argue that by exploring famili-ness from the perspective of the consumer, wecan contribute to a more complete understand-ing of the concept and shed light on the poten-tial advantages that tourism family firms cangain if they address consumers’ concerns.

In the paper, we first introduce the most rele-vant findings from literature on the topic. This isfollowed by an explanation of the methods usedby the authors to explore what perception con-sumers have of familiness in tourism experi-ences, a description and interpretation of themain findings, and finally, the main conclusions.

BACKGROUND

Family firms

In recent years we have seen a considerableincrease in research on family businesses. Thisis partly due to the relevance these firms have inmost economies. Some of this research hasfocused on the differences between family andnonfamily businesses (Chrisman, Chua, &Sharma, 2003), with particular attention to theextent to which family firms possess idiosyn-cratic resources and competencies and thereforepossess a competitive advantage over nonfamilyfirms. The analysis of these idiosyncrasies offamily businesses is always tied to the affec-tions, impacts, and influences that the familyowners have on the business (Klein,Astrachan, & Smymios, 2005).

According to Stal (2010, p. 2) “family busi-nesses are not like other businesses; anyonewho has ever worked with, or for, a familybusiness will know that there are unique forcesat play. It is a unique environment that hasbenefits and pitfalls all of its own.”

Chrisman, Chua, and Sharma (2005) say thatdefinitions of family firms can be largely cate-gorized into two groups. The first highlights thefamily involvement in ownership, governance,management, and succession as necessary

antecedents to defining a family business. Thesecond further adds that these antecedents arenecessary but are insufficient if they do notproduce certain family distinctiveness (e.g.,familiness).

Familiness

The family firm literature has coined the termfamiliness to refer to the idiosyncratic bundleof resources and capabilities that familyfirms possess (Habbershon & Williams, 1999;Habbershon, Williams, & MacMillan, 2003).Thus, the role of the family in a family firm isseen as a characteristic contribution to the strat-egy of the firm with the aim of profiting fromthe idiosyncratic interplay of both the familyand the business elements in this type of firm(Basco & Pérez Rodríguez, 2009; Nordqvist &Melin, 2010; Pieper & Klein, 2007).

Habbershon et al. (1999) are the first authorsto use this concept in the family business litera-ture. They defined family firms as complex anddynamic businesses with characteristic andunique resources and referred to these resourcesas familiness. Irava (2009) has recently made animportant contribution by clearly stating whatthese idiosyncratic resources are and classifyingthem into three types: human resources, withpotential distinctiveness in terms of empower-ment, trust, loyalty, commitment, and so forth;organizational resources with advantages interms of family interests and values, familypride, fast decision making, and so forth; andprocess resources in terms of relational distinc-tiveness with external stakeholders and custo-mers. Familiness is therefore seen as a potentialattribute from which family firms can gain com-petitive advantage (Dyer & Singh, 1998;Sirmon & Hitt, 2003).

A useful and relevant recent definition andconceptualization of familiness is provided byZellweger et al. (2010), who define a three-dimensional model of familiness that explainsthe influence of the family on the business in afamily firm, thus contributing to the definitionof familiness. The three relevant dimensions offamiliness for these authors are: the involve-ment of the family in the ownership of the

148 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

06:

31 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

firm, the essence of family participation, and therelevance of the family in the identity of thefirm. The first is concerned with the extent towhich the family owners are directly involvedin the ownership, management, and control ofthe firm. The second dimension, essence of thefamily participation, represents the interests andvalues of the family that are embedded into thephilosophy and strategies of the firm. Finally,the third dimension, the presence and visibilityof the family in the identity and image of thefirm, refers to the extent to which the image ofthe firm is clearly defined by the identity of thefamily (Figure 1).

The first of these dimensions, involvement inownership, is a prerequisite for a firm to be afamily firm—that is, to have an accountabilitystructure that can sustain the family culture inthe business. The other two, essence of partici-pation and identity of the firm, increase thefirm’s familiness when present and thus thepotential to gain competitive advantage overfirms with less familiness. This suggests thatthe cultural dimension of familiness is relevantand that we should look at a family business asa family culture with a particular philosophy.

Familiness and consumer behavior

Consumer behavior is “the psychological andsocial processes people undergo in the acquisition,use and disposal of products, services, ideas, andpractices” (Bagozzi, Gurhan-Canli, & Priester,2002). The study of consumer behavior is needed

to explain the success of a business and the con-sumers’ purchases of products or services.Therefore, by analyzing the behavior of consu-mers concerning the presence or absence of famili-ness in products and services, we can assess theposition of familiness as a factor in the consumerdecision-making process. There is thus a need tobetter understand the role family members play inconveying familiness to customers and how thisconjures up feelings of guest satisfaction. In otherwords, we need to find out how customers per-ceive familiness and how they value this attribute.

Among the general public, the awareness ofwhether there are family businesses behind theproducts they consume, or not, is low. This isbecause people cannot generally distinguish afamily from a nonfamily company unless thesebusinesses actively communicate their familystatus (Schwass, Smit, Dogra, & Moeller,2009). Therefore, advertising a family-basedbrand identity might have a significant impacton the firm’s performance (Craig, Dibrell, &Davis, 2008).

In fact, it has proven to positively influencethe buying behavior of consumers (NyenrodeNow, 2008). Recent research has begun toexamine the specific ways in which familyfirms leverage on their distinctive attributes—that is, their familiness, in their marketing activ-ities. Emphasis has been given to the develop-ment of family-based brand identities (Cabrera-Suárez, Déniz-Déniz, & Martín-Santana, 2011;Parmentier, 2011), to the different branding stra-tegies that family firms can draw on to differ-entiate themselves from their competitors

FIGURE 1. Familiness Relevant Dimensions (adapted from Zellweger et al., 2010)

Involvement

in ownership

of the business by

the family

members

Essence of

participation

of the family in the

business

How much family

values are

introduced in the

strategies of the

firm?

Identity and

image of the

firm

with strong

presence and

visibility of the

family identity

F A M I L I N E S S

Presas, Guia, and Muñoz 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

06:

31 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

(Micelotta & Raynard, 2011), and to howfamily firms use their Web sites to promotethemselves as such (Blombäck & Ramírez-Pasillas, 2009; Morgan & Botero, 2010; PresasMaynegre et al., 2011).

A consumer or a potential client might, thus,be able to distinguish the nature of the companyin two ways. First, through how it communi-cates, presents, and introduces itself and itsproducts to others, and second, through theinformation that people get from other consu-mers—for example, by word of mouth. In addi-tion, when the product or service is deliveredand consumed at the same time (Peters &Frehse, 2011) and within the premises of thebusiness, as in the case of most tourism experi-ences (Jones & Haven-Tang, 2005), the directcontact with the business and the unmediatedconsumer perception of the idiosyncratic com-binations of resources can suffice to recognizethe familiness of the firm.

An adequate understanding of what famili-ness means to consumers is therefore needed iftourism family firms are to benefit from thisattribute by designing appropriate experiencesand developing adequate marketing and brand-ing strategies.

Family firms and familiness in tourismresearch

With tourism being the primary researchdomain of this study, it is worthwhile examiningthe literature on family firms and familiness inthis context. Getz and Carlsen (2005) reviewedthe literature on tourism and family firms andconcluded that the principal concern of thisliterature is on the small business attribute ofmost of these firms, with emphasis on entrepre-neurship, especially in terms of motives andgoals for starting up a family business, onfamily life and gender issues within the familybusiness, and on the connections betweenfamily businesses and sustainable tourismdevelopment (Jones & Haven-Tang, 2005).Unfortunately, most of this literature is notbased on research specifically concerned withthe family-related dimensions of tourism busi-nesses, which remains a secondary and often

incidental topic associated with small business,entrepreneurship, and other themes. This hasresulted in a lack of systematic comparison offamily and nonfamily businesses and the factthat the vital influence of familiness in tourismand hospitality has been surprisinglydownplayed.

The most remarkable exceptions are found inWanhill (1997, 2000) and Presas Maynegreet al. (2011). Wanhill noted that families canbe part of the tourism experience and that theauthenticity of a tourism experience can beincreased through contact with local residents.Presas Maynegre et al. (2011) explain how par-ticular family values, or familiness, support sus-tainable practices of tourism development and aparticular pattern of business growth, and provehow the fact of being a family businessbecomes an essential part of the tourist experi-ence for the guest.

Therefore, when the family becomes part ofthe attraction, it can become a powerful sourceof competitive advantage. Then, branding thisfamiliness can play a crucial role and evenencompass “brand extensions” into nontourismproducts and services (i.e., farm products in afamily agrotourism, wine in a family wine tour-ism business, etc.).

Research focus

As mentioned earlier, the term familinesshas mostly been conceptualized and analyzedfrom the internal perspective of the company.Familiness relates to the influence of thefamily that runs a family business, which man-ifests itself as a set of unique and distinctivecapabilities and resources for this type of firm(i.e., trust, commitment, loyalty, family values,etc.). In the tourism literature, most of theresearch on tourism and family firms ignoresthe role familiness can play for these firms interms of competitive advantage. Wanhill(1997) and Presas Maynegre et al. (2011) arethe exception, suggesting that the family of atourism family firm may indeed be part of thetourism experience, and this opens the door toresearch on what familiness means to custo-mers and how they really perceive or observe

150 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

06:

31 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

the influence of the family on the familybusiness.

Family firms and their distinctive resourcesand capabilities can add value to the experienceof the visitor. They can thus differentiate theproduct in a way that nonfamily firms or familyfirms with low familiness cannot match. This, inturn, opens up opportunities for the branding offamiliness as an additional means ofdifferentiation.

Interestingly, the topic of branding familinesshas very recently started receiving substantialattention (Micelotta & Raynard, 2011;Parmentier, 2011; Presas Maynegre et al.,2011). However, the understanding of theunderlying differentiating attributes of theexperiences of customers in tourism familyfirms, which are the basis of these brandingstrategies, remain unknown. In other words,we do not know yet how consumers perceivefamiliness. This is the focus of this study and,thus, the research question is: How do consu-mers perceive a sense of familiness in the ser-vices and experiences delivered to them byfamily tourism firms?

METHOD

We take an exploratory approach, which isjustified on the basis of the scant literature andlack of previous research available in this area.To fulfill the aim of the paper, we opted forqualitative methods. The purpose was to collectand interpret data concerning the way consu-mers perceive familiness in tourism familyfirm’s experiences.

From the range of available qualitative meth-ods, we chose the use of focus groups in orderto obtain in-depth qualitative data. A focusgroup, as defined by Dean (1994, p. 342), is“an informal, small-group discussion designedto obtain in-depth qualitative information.” Thechoice of this method of data collection is basedon its advantages in terms of obtaining deepinsight into the way participants think and howthe perceptions and ideas of the group areformed (Sebele, 2010). In our case, the intentionof the focus group was to bring together a rangeof people with different perspectives on the way

they travel with the purpose of both gettingindividual responses and also obtainingdynamic interaction between them, so enablingcontrasting views to be compared and exploredin-depth (Gration, Raciti, & Arcodia, 2011).

We organized and conducted three differentfocus groups. No additional groups were neededas saturation was reached with the third group.In our case, mixed groups were advantageousover segmented groups as more diverse per-spectives could be discussed together. No obsta-cles to the group dynamics were expected dueto the type of topic under discussion. Eachgroup was, thus, comprised of experienced con-sumers of family firms’ tourism products withdifferent backgrounds regarding gender, age,and nationality. We assumed, thus, that differentperspectives and experiences on the topic wereto be found in differences in these attributes.There were six participants in each focus group,proportionally distributed between men andwomen; among young (18–35), middle aged(36–50), and older (51–70) participants; andamong southern Europeans, northernEuropeans, and Americans. Sampling was thustheoretical or purpose-motivated, which is com-mon in this type of method. Small groups allowmore time for each participant, provide a clearersense of their reaction to the topic, and requireless moderator involvement. They are, thus,suitable for less structured approaches to focusgroups. Participants were direct or indirectacquaintances of the researchers and werefound through the researchers’ social networks.About half of them were acquaintances them-selves. This approach to recruiting is not pro-blematic in our case as the topic for discussionwas not sensitive and has advantages in terms ofparticipants’ self-disclosure.

The researchers opted for a low structureddiscussion with low moderator involvement.The exploratory character of the study and thelack of previous research on the topic call forththis type of approach (Morgan, 1997). In eachsession, the moderator, or facilitator, and herassistants (who were the authors of the paper)introduced the topic to the participants andexplained what familiness is and how it hasbeen defined in the literature, letting themknow that the purpose of the discussion was to

Presas, Guia, and Muñoz 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

06:

31 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

learn from their perspectives and experiencesregarding this topic and instructing them withthe rules of focus group participation.

Then, the discussion started with this generalquestion: One of the things that we are espe-cially interested in is how you have perceivedand experienced familiness in your past activ-ities as consumers of tourism family firms’ ser-vices. What can you tell us about that? Thequestion was first answered individually by allparticipants and later discussed in a group withinterventions from the moderator as required,depending on the particular evolution of thegroup dynamics. This topic occupied most ofthe time of the discussion as it deals with themain aim of the study. A second complementarytopic was discussed with the introduction ofthese questions: How much do you valuefamiliness in your travel experiences? Do youalways value it positively? Finally, a last com-plementary topic under discussion was con-cerned with the extent to which participantsfelt that familiness is adequately used as a dif-ferentiating element of the product in the adver-tising and communicational strategies of thesefirms: What effect do you think branding famili-ness would have on improving the business ofthese firms?

When these three topics were properly cov-ered in the group discussions, they ended witheach participant providing a summary of themost important elements of the debate. Eachsession lasted between one and two hours, andin each session, one of the assistants took notesduring the discussions.

Finally, the results of the focus group ses-sions, both as recorded information and notestaken by the assistant, were analyzed and dis-cussed by the researchers to check the consis-tency of the outcomes and of the processthrough which they were obtained and also tocome up with a systematic account of the find-ings that are presented in the next section. Thefirst stage of the analysis consisted of the codingof the emerging relevant topics and dimensionswith notes about the number of mentions,importance, and enthusiasm given to them ineach group. Given the relatively small amountof information to be analyzed, coding was donemanually instead of by using specialized

software like NVivo or AtlasTi. After examin-ing group-to-group validation (Barbour &Kitzinger, 1999), codes were then interpretedand reported with references to relevant andillustrative excerpts of the discussions.

FINDINGS

As a result of the analysis of the dataobtained in the focus groups, we observed thatcustomers of tourism family firms experience,interpret, and understand familiness as a bundleof four complementary but different dimen-sions: (1) getting acquainted with the familybusiness, (2) having direct communicationwith the family owners of the firm, (3) feelingthe hospitality and hospitableness of the firm,and (4) perceiving “authenticity” and “slow tra-vel” values in their experience. The four dimen-sions were found in all the focus groups withminor differences in emphasis depending on thegroup.

Getting acquainted with the familybusiness

This dimension was concerned with learningabout and getting to know the family and thefamily firm: learning that there is a familybehind the business, the history, origin and evo-lution of the company, the place, and so forth.This learning can occur before, after, or duringthe visit either via the company Web site, leaf-lets, and other advertising materials or throughword of mouth or social networks.

Among the various communication tools thatare available to let customers know that thebusiness is a family business, storytelling isthe most effective way of conveying this knowl-edge to customers, as pointed out by the focusgroup participants: “In the very moment youknow that it is a family business you have adifferent feeling (...) and if you read or are toldstories about the history of the business, thisfeeling gets stronger. It is like in social situa-tions, where you feel you are getting to knowsome new acquaintances (…) some interestingpeople.”

152 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

06:

31 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Here, we must note the relevance of thetacit dimension of knowledge (Polany, 1958)in the experiences of learning. On one hand,Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) describe the pro-cesses of transferring tacit knowledge as“socialization” and “internalization” processes.On the other hand, Swap, Leornard, Shields,and Abrams (2001) explain how close interac-tion and storytelling promote the transfer oftacit knowledge through these mechanisms.Therefore, the close interaction and type ofstorytelling observed between family firms’members and customers are propitious toexchange tacit knowledge: a type of knowl-edge that is absent in the much more imperso-nal interactions seen in nonfamily businesses.This is, thus, a source of additional satisfactionfor customers as opportunities to learn tacitforms of knowledge are scarcer than to learncodified forms.

Organizational storytelling, therefore,becomes an important communication tool todifferentiate the business, not only to theemployees, but also to the customers. Throughstorytelling, a company can create a powerfulcorporate identity (Fog, Budtz, & Yakaboylu,2005), which, if adequately communicatedthrough marketing messages, will form thebasis for a strong corporate image and brand:“I’ve been there many times and every time Iwas told stories about the history of the busi-ness, anecdotes (…). It makes this businessunique, different from any other (...). A strongbrand in my mind.”

Moreover, the particular history of the familybusiness that delivers the product or servicemight become an added value to the experienceof the customer. This history can be attractive inthat it explains the values that inspired thedevelopment of the business. This can be asource of pride for the owners and employeesof the firm (Cowan & Milne, 1997). The historyof the firm can also add consumer credibilityand sympathy regarding the vision, values, andobjectives of the business (Peters & Austin,1985): “It is a third generation family business(…). You are delighted by the stories they tell, asense of dignity and self-respect (…). You feelsome attachment to their world, some identifica-tion with their values (…) something similar to

what you experience when reading a novel orwatching a film.”

Many businesses are willing to adopt animage on the basis of traditional or “family”values. Family businesses, in particular, havedistinctive and inimitable stories to tell to thestakeholders as a distinctive family businesshistory where the family is implicated (Narva,2001) and incorporate them into their businesscommunication strategy.

Having direct communication with thefamily owners of the firm

Another important dimension of familinessthat came up from the focus group discussionsis concerned with the experience of direct com-munication and interaction between the custo-mer and the family owner(s) of the business.

In the tourism literature, we find that one ofthe differentiating characteristics of consumingtourism products and services is the direct con-tact between consumer and supplier. This con-tact strongly affects the satisfaction of theconsumer and thus, owners and employees ofthe delivering family firms become somehowpart of the product (Mullins, 1995). Indeed,being in close contact with guests and deliver-ing personal, hands-on service is a primary taskin a tourism and hospitality business, and insome cases, it provides a personalized hospital-ity experience (Loureiro, 2010). This experienceof familiness requires that the interaction withthe owner goes beyond the mere delivering ofthe service, encompassing other types of inter-actions like conversations and first-handexchange of information, which foster the crea-tion of a somehow closer and personal relation-ship between client and supplier that goesbeyond the conventional “business” relation-ship: “It is a lovely place in a rural area (…).At dinner time you can sit with the family own-ers and share the same meal (….). You chatwith them in the same way as when you arehaving dinner with friends or new acquain-tances (…). You can even help them to cookthe meal!”

In addition, with stronger and more mean-ingful intercourse, customers can get to know

Presas, Guia, and Muñoz 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

06:

31 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

the history of the business, the family, theirvalues, and identity, and so forth, directly fromthe most important person in the business. Thishas an additional value in terms of both authen-ticity in the acquisition of knowledge, as wesaw above, and a stronger “feeling of belong-ing” after having experienced a direct personalrelationship with the owner or family member:“Every time we’ve been there we have had theopportunity to spend time with the family own-ers (…). They have always shown interest in us,our family, our region, our life, our stories (…).It is not only that we get to know them, but thatthey get to know us (…). Somehow, you feelthey are your friends and feel comfortable treat-ing them as such.”

In small family firms where all the membersof the business are family members, it is impor-tant for them to know the relevance that theirinteraction might have for the delivery of thistype of familiness and for the satisfaction ofcustomers with the experience. In the case offamily firms that have employees that are notmembers of the family, they should also bemade aware of the relevance of the way theyrelate to clients in search of familiness. Wherestaff is employed in family businesses, theirmorale, attitudes, and actions are likely to bedirectly affected by the owners, who give apersonal touch to every aspect of the business.In this case, the selection of employees, theirtraining, and their rewarding play a key role inensuring the delivery of familiness (Powers &Barrows, 1999). This might result in servicethat is quite different from that obtained inlarge, impersonal establishments.

In any case, when the contact and the rela-tionship is with the owner, the feeling of famili-ness might be slightly different than when it iswith employees, as in the former when therelational content of the experience involves a“higher level” social capital—that is, some“friendship” with somebody who is a more“prominent” player: “I remember a nice familyrun hotel I sometimes stay in (…). The ownersare not always present and in these cases youonly deal with employees. It is not the sameexperience (…) well it depends on theemployee (…) some of them behave as if theywere part of the owner’s family (…). In any

case if you miss talking to the owners you feelsome sort of a ‘loss.’”

Feeling the hospitality and hospitablenessof the firm

Another dimension of familiness the partici-pants in the focus groups agreed on is con-cerned with experiencing hospitableness intheir visit. Tourism services are different fromother services because the former are linked toemotional experiences associated with the rela-tionship between guest and host (Lashley, 2000;Lashley & Morrison, 2003; Lashley, Morrison,& Randall, 2004).

The definition of hospitality that bestmatches the descriptions of the experiences offamiliness narrated by the focus group partici-pants is Hank’s (1989) “kindness in welcomingstrangers.” This conception of hospitality hasbeen termed “hospitableness” (O’Connor,1999; Telfer, 2000). It refers to the welcomingthat guests or visitors experience from theirhosts (Hanks, 1989) and might be felt by thevisitor as a kind of generosity from the host:“Everytime I go there I feel welcome, cared for(…). A little bit like another family member. Itmakes the stay very comfortable and relaxed …When I leave I’m always offered products fromthe farm as a present to take home.”

Some of the descriptions given by the focusgroup participants also stressed the idea of“feeling at home”—that is, being somewherenew but having the opportunity to enjoy thecomfort and conveniences that we have orwould like to have at home but without havingto experience the same daily routines.Paradoxically this “feeling at home” impliesthe freedom to experience newness(Bortherton, 1999) together with the feeling ofbeing cared for and feeling satisfied with life:“It has definitely something to do with ‘feelingat home’ while ‘being away’. By feeling athome I mean finding some time for what youhave or would love to be able to have at home:for social interaction, for relaxing (…) and whynot, for having a tea or your favourite type ofbreakfast (…). I definitely find this is deliveredbetter by family firms. By being away, I refer to

154 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

06:

31 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

the unique opportunities you have for newexperiences of all sorts when you travel, whichyou do not have at home.”

Therefore, “familiness” as “hospitableness”is concerned with caring for the guests on thebasis of a close understanding of their emo-tional needs and desired experiences (Lashley,Lynch, & Morrison, 2007). Hospitableness is aterm that provides the right insight into the kindof “familiness” service that most customersexpect from the tourist and hospitality industries(Telfer, 2000). Tourism family firms whosefamily members have these values are thereforebetter positioned to make the clients experiencea stronger feeling of familiness.

The consumer satisfaction is sometimesinfluenced by the actions and service of front-line employees (Han & Back, 2007; Mattila &Enz, 2002). An important aspect of this dimen-sion was raised in the discussions regarding theculture-bound character of hospitableness.Particular types of behavior that add to thefeeling of welcome and familiness withinsome cultures might be otherwise offensive inother cultures. These point to the fact that,within the concerns of the international tourismmarket, the delivery of familiness will only beassured when the family members and/oremployees of the firm in direct contact withthe customers are proficient in both languagesand intercultural relational skills.

Experiencing “authenticity” and “slowtravel” values

The last dimension of familiness that arose inthe focus group discussions was concerned withthe feeling of “authenticity” and of “slow tra-vel” values.

The concept of “authenticity” was first intro-duced in tourism academic literature byMacCannell (1999). The interaction betweenthe tourist, the firm, and the product can createa feeling of “authenticity” in the tourist experi-ence when certain circumstances apply (Olsen,2002). On the other hand, “slow travel” meansexploring and experiencing what the touristfeels is interesting and not what is supposed tobe interesting (Cole, 2006). Slow travelling

means getting to know the place and the localculture, shopping in the same shops as thelocals, learning to cook the local food, learningand being interested in the local language, andso forth. This implies “taking time” and gettingattached to a place. In summary, slow travel istravelling with lots of room for improvisation(Gosálvez, 2006) and avoiding staged authenti-city (Dickinson & Lumsdon, 2010; Wang,2000).

Therefore, familiness as “slow travel” meansconsuming “authentic” products and services,feeling close to the “hosts,” whether servicesuppliers or locals, and getting to experiencethe local traditions, food, culture, history, andso forth: “The family owners belong to the localcommunity, they are proud of their identity(…). They give you advice about the placesyou can visit, local restaurants, where to shop,events you might want to attend, etc. Theyalways emphasize the places they go or wouldgo themselves as locals and even explain storiesand anecdotes about them. Altogether it makesthe experience very authentic (…) or in otherwords a slow travel experience.”

On the other hand, family firms seem to beparticularly suited to putting sustainability intopractice and making it a credible commitment(Presas Maynegre et al., 2011). Learning thatthe company puts sustainable values into prac-tice and thus supports the economic, sociocul-tural, and environmental sustainability of thelocal community can contribute to the feelingof authenticity and slow values: “The owners ofthat family business are active members of localcommunity groups involved in the preservationof the local heritage, identity and culture. Theyuse the local language, cook traditional foodfrom local products; the hotel extensions arebuilt with traditional materials and within thelocal architecture aesthetic standards. All thisdefinitely adds to the feeling of authenticity.”

Therefore, tourism family firms can enhancethe amount of familiness as perceived by custo-mers by acting as dedicated hosts in terms ofsupplying slow travel values and authenticity tothe way they deliver the services. This includesboth a genuine and authentic welcoming of theguests, as already suggested above and, sharingtheir social contacts with local people and

Presas, Guia, and Muñoz 155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

06:

31 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

culture, as tourists who have close contact withlocal cultures have more memorable travelexperiences (Kim, 2010).

Nonetheless, the development and promotionof slow tourism needs an adequate understand-ing by the local stakeholders and, in particular,by the local communities. With this, stake-holders gain an awareness of the advantages ofthis type of tourism and can adopt the “slowtravel” values in their behavior when designingproducts and interacting with customers (Matos,2004). It is important to note, though, that toomuch planning might damage the “authenticity”of tourism experiences and, therefore, breakaway from the desired “slowness.”

What is the value of familiness asperceived by consumers?

Finally, regarding the value of familiness forconsumers, the focus group discussions resultedin a generalized appreciation of all these attri-butes. There was only one exception and thiswas when the tourist prefers anonymity, at leastconcerning their accommodation services.Some customers sometimes prefer a servicewhere they can feel a high level of privacy,which is the opposite of what defines famili-ness: “It depends, sometimes depending on yourmood or the motive and type of trip you do, allyou need is privacy, comfort and anonymity. Iam thinking of a business trip now. In thesecases familiness will not add value to theexperience and might even be harmful.”

Therefore, knowledge about the dimensionsof familiness that consumers perceive and valueinform tourism family firms about the type ofactivities, services, and behavior they shoulddeliver to satisfy the guest and differentiatethemselves from competitors.

The focus group participants also discussedthe potential benefits that firms deliveringfamiliness could reap from branding this beha-vior. There was agreement that, in most cases,this type of product is known by the customervia “word of mouth,” or as a positive unex-pected surprise after experiencing a randomlychosen “supplier” after which an ongoing plea-surable relationship between the business and

the client ensues (Kumar, Olshavsky, & King,2001; Loureiro, 2010). So, more can be done bytourism family businesses to communicate thiselement of their products and create a familinessbrand, from which they would definitelybenefit.

DISCUSSION

Now, if we look attentively at the fourdimensions of perceived familiness together,we can observe how similar they are to theattributes of visiting family and friends’ experi-ences as described in the literature. Therefore,treating the guests somehow as “friends or rela-tives” could strengthen the feeling of familinessin the experience of the customers.

The Visiting Friends and Relatives (VFR)form of tourism is defined as “a form of travelthat is about being co-present with significant‘faces’, being their guests, receiving their hos-pitality and perhaps enjoying their knowledgeof local culture” (Larsen, Axhausen, & Urry,2006, p. 247). The first two dimensions offamiliness identified above, “getting to knowthe family firm and its history, values, etc.”and “having contact with the family owners”both relate with the idea of “being co-presentwith significant faces” of the definition of VFRexperiences given above. The first of thesedimensions is necessary to make the hostingfamily firm a “significant face” for the tourist,as without knowledge of who they are this isjust not possible. The second, “having contactwith the family owners,” is also needed to makethe idea of “co-presence” of the VFR experi-ence definition plausible. The other twodimensions of the familiness construct, “hospi-tableness” and “authenticity and slow travelvalues,” have a clear correspondence with therest of ideas in the VFR experience definition:“being their guests, receiving their hospitalityand perhaps enjoying their knowledge of localculture.” Hence, we can say that while the firsttwo dimensions of familiness as perceived byconsumers make the tourist acquainted with or“personally” related to the host (without whichthis familiness cannot exist), the other twodimensions of familiness make the tourist take

156 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

06:

31 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

advantage of this relationship to actually experi-ence hospitality and authenticity in their visit.

There are, therefore, important similitudesbetween the consumer perception of familinessand the visiting friends and relatives’ experi-ence. There is, however, a clear differencebetween them in that there is a commercialtransaction behind in the former, while in thelatter there is not (Giraud, 2007).

Uriely (2010) further states that VFR tourismis a complex and multidimensional experiencethat may involve both feelings of “home” aswell as a sense of being “away,” where“home” is a complex entity that involves spatialand physical aspects as well as symbolic andemotional attachments to real or imaginedplaces and people (White & White, 2007). Hepresents a conceptual model that includes threeguiding dimensions to evaluate tourists’ senseof being at “home”: familiarity (Schutz, 1944),sociability (Simmel, 1949), and privacy(Goffman, 1959; Watson & Austerberry, 1985).

The experience of “home” entails familiarityboth at the home of the tourist’s hosts and out-doors in the visited destination. Indoors is con-sidered in terms of familiar food, language, andbehavior when interacting with the hosts.Outdoors is considered in terms of access tothe nontourist areas of the visited destinationand getting familiar with the everyday life oflocal residents. Moreover, the hosts might pro-vide their visitors with useful informationregarding transportation, directions, and prices,as well as wider knowledge about local politics,culture, or other aspects of local society. Thus,regarding familiarity, both VFR and familyfirms’ hosts provide their guests with feelingsof “home” while being away.

Following Uriely (2010), “sociability” stres-ses the importance of interactions in shapinghome-like experiences. The meaning of“home” is here linked to forms of associationsbetween equal significant others who cometogether for the sole purpose of enjoying eachother’s company (Simmel, 1949). AlthoughLarsen (2008) suggests that VFR tourism canbe seen as a representative form of sociability,Uriely (2010, p. 855) acknowledges that “thesocial role of being a non-commercial touristinvolves situational inferiority that could serve

as a barrier against the desire of the VFR touristto feel ‘at home’ in terms of achieving socia-bility.” This is not the case when the host is afamily firm, in that the role of being a commer-cial host dissipates the above inferiority, and sothe tourist will also feel “at home” in terms ofsociability (Giraud, 2007).

Finally, following Goffman (1959), “home”refers to the “back-stage” zone, where indivi-duals and families can be themselves. Alongthese lines, Watson and Austerberry (1985)relate the notion of “home” to privacy. Visitorsstaying with friends or relatives might feel lessat “home” than other tourists who enjoy theindoor privacy provided by a paid hotel room.Additionally, the visitor’s social role of beingnoncommercial guests involves social obliga-tions and behavioral constraints. In this regard,Aramberri (2001) suggests that noncommercialguests are obliged to show gratitude for thehospitality and adjust to the conditions as wellas to the rules of the house without complaint.Furthermore, the decision making of VFR tour-ists, in terms of what to do and where to go,might be restricted based on their hosts’ prefer-ences and schedule. Therefore, if “home” meansprivacy and freedom, the social role of being anoncommercial guest might hinder the VFRtourist’s sense of being “at home.” Again, herefamily firms are at an advantage against VFR tomake their clients feel more “at home” as thesocial obligations do not exist and the lack ofprivacy is much less felt.

Nonetheless, if we compare the experience ofprivacy in these tourism family firms with thatof more conventional large firms that supply amore impersonal service, the privacy found inthe latter is higher, and thus in this respect,family firms will make the tourist feel a little“less at home” than conventional firms, as learntfrom the focus group participants. Therefore,tourism family firms are at an advantage toboth enable their clients to feel “at home” in aforeign place in terms of familiarity and ignorethe circumstances that might generate feelingsof being “away” among VFR tourists in termsof both sociability and privacy. When comparedwith conventional large firms that supply imper-sonal services, family firms also perform betterin making the tourist “feel at home” attribute,

Presas, Guia, and Muñoz 157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

06:

31 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

except in terms of privacy (Wood, 1994). Wesummarize these arguments in Table 1.

Finally, our findings are also a reflection ofRelph’s (1976) theory of place and placeless-ness. Places have an identity and are signifi-cant centers of our immediate experience ofthe world. The degree of attachment, involve-ment, and concern that a person has for a placeaffects the intensity of this identity. Therefore,places are experienced as authentic.Oppositely, placelessness is the result of theeradication of distinctive places and the mak-ing of standardized landscapes as a conse-quence of insensitivity to the significance ofplace and an uncritical acceptance of massvalues. Thus, experiencing familiness, as seenin this paper, is clearly related to finding andfeeling a sense of place. Instead, placelessness,or location, could be a valid metaphor of thetype of experience found in impersonalencounters characteristic of chain operationsin larger nonfamily firms.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

In this paper, an attempt is made to contri-bute to the growing research on the concept offamiliness. We have observed that the consu-mers’ perception is a novel and necessaryapproach to the topic. The interpretation offamiliness by tourism consumers through theirexperiences in family firms results in a bundlewith four dimensions: (1) getting to know thebusiness as a family business, (2) having directinteraction with the family owners of the firm,(3) feeling the hospitality and hospitableness ofthe firm, and (4) perceiving “authenticity” in theconsumption in terms of “slow” values. Thefirst two dimensions create a bond between thecompany and the client, while the latter two

allow the customers to experience authenticityand slow travel values in their visit.

The familiness provided by tourism familyfirms makes the customer “feel at home” whilein a foreign place. In fact, we have seen that thisfamiliness makes the tourist feel more “athome” than nonfamily firms and even morethan VFR hosts. None of the three dimensionsof “feeling at home” is low in family firms:Familiarity and sociability are high, while priv-acy is medium. This seems to situate tourismfamily firms at a clear advantage over nonfam-ily firms (and even over VFR) in terms ofpotential to satisfy tourists.

Nonetheless, being a family firm is notenough to make the tourist perceive familiness.In the first place, the tourist needs to know thatthe firm is a family firm and have informationabout who the family owners are. Here, brand-ing and storytelling are essential mechanisms.Second, the family values that owners instill inthe business need to be supportive of hospitalityand authenticity so that customers can perceivethem and experience them. And last, by havingdirect contact with the clients, the owners cancreate a closer “personal” relationship, whichenhances the sociability of the experience andthe feeling of familiness and feeling “at home”of the tourists.

The only “feeling at home” dimension wherefamily firms can under-perform is privacy andintimacy. Although firms that supply moreimpersonal services are clearly at an advantageon this issue, there must be mechanisms in thehands of the family firm to handle this when-ever necessary. Further research is needed onthis, though.

The findings also inform of the importance ofthe actual experience of the tourist, which is notso much related to the branding strategy as tothe actual operation and supply of services andexperiences to customers (i.e., service quality,welcoming, decor, food, etc.). This calls for theneed of further research on the design of newproducts and their operations so that the corre-sponding dimensions of familiness can actuallybe experienced and valued by the tourist. Thereis therefore a pressing need to consider thesedimensions as key elements that add value totourism experiences. The main product can be

TABLE 1. Types of Travel Experiences and“Feeling at Home”

VFR Family firms Nonfamily firms

Familiarity Higher Higher LowerSociability Medium Higher LowerPrivacy Lower Medium Higher

158 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

06:

31 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

differentiated when one or several of thesedimensions are correctly and successfully inte-grated into the product itself. These elementscatch the attention of tourists and further satisfytheir tourism experience.

Therefore, family firms that are able to sup-ply familiness and actually integrate thesedimensions into their advertising and brandingstrategies are at an advantage in that theirdistinguishing and valued attributes can bebetter recognized by both prospective andactual customers. Despite the recent interestin researching this topic, more research is stillneeded in this area to better understand howfamily firms create a meaningful brand throughwhich customers perceive the familiness oftheir products.

Nonetheless, not all tourists seek familinessin their travel activities. Further research onthis topic will be welcome in order to informtourism family firms about the consumer beha-vior of tourists regarding familiness. Futureresearch should also focus on the role of story-telling in the delivering of familiness.Storytelling seems to be behind each of thefour dimensions and therefore can have amajor impact on the implementation of famili-ness practices. For instance, we have seen howstorytelling is an effective mechanism to trans-fer tacit knowledge, which implies a moreintense understanding of the family businessand a closer interaction with the owners, inopposition with larger nonfamily businesseswhere interaction is impersonal and based onthe transfer of only explicit knowledge.Similarly, storytelling can increase the intensitywith which a place can be felt and becomemeaningful and authentic.

Finally, the type of pseudo-relationships thatfrequent guests may experience with alternatingstaff members in chain establishments couldalso be seen in family businesses that rely onnonfamily employees. Thus, whether the familyfirm has or does not have employees, and howthese employees are involved and have interna-lized the values of the family firm, may alsohave an impact on the delivery of familiness asperceived by the customers.

REFERENCES

Aramberri, J. (2001). The host should get lost:Paradigms in the tourism theory. Annals of TourismResearch, 28(3), 738–761.

Bagozzi, R. P., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Priester, J. R. (2002).The social psychology of consumer behavior.Buckingham: Open University Press.

Barbour, R., & Kitzinger, J. (1999). Developing focusgroup research. London: Sage.

Basco, R., & Pérez Rodríguez, M. J. (2009). Studying thefamily enterprise holistically. Evidence for integratedfamily and business systems. Family Business Review,22(1), 82–95.

Blombäck, A., & Ramírez-Pasillas, M. (2009). Family as apart of the corporate brand – spotting the ambiguous,emergent and strategic forms of identity creation. Paperpresented at the 9th Annual International FamilyEnterprise Research Academy Conference (IFERA),Limassol, Cyprus.

Bortherton, B. (1999). Towards a definitive view of thenature of hospitality and hospitality management.International Journal of Contamporary HospitalityManagement, 11(4), 165–173.

Cabrera-Suárez, M. K., Déniz-Déniz, M. C., & Martín-Santana, J. D. (2011). Familiness and market orienta-tion: A stakeholder approach. Journal of FamilyBusiness Strategy, 2(1), 34–42.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (2003). Currenttrends and future directions in family business manage-ment studies: Toward a theory of the family firm.Coleman White Paper Series, C. Foundation: 62.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Sharma, P. (2005). Trendsand directions in the development of a strategic man-agement theory of the family firm. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, 29(5), 555–576.

Cole, D. (2006). Summer Ease: Picture yourself on thisbridge. No E-mail. No cellphone. No PDA. Now youare ready to hear the secrets to a stress-free summer.Travel tips. Cool tools. Blissful books. Read on andmellow out. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060703/3slow.htm

Cowan, P. M., & Milne, P. D. (1997). The family businesshistory: A catalyst to a successful succession plan: Whywrite a family business history?. Retrieved from http://www.simpsonwigle.com/pdf/FamilyBusinessHistory.pdf

Craig, J. B., Dibrell, C., & Davis, P. S. (2008). Leveragingfamily-based brand identity to enhance firm competitive-ness and performance in family businesses. Journal ofSmall Business Management, 46(3), 351–371.

Dean, D. L. (1994). How to Use Focus Groups. In J. S.Wholey, H. P. Hatry & K. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbookof practical program evaluation (pp. 338–349). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Presas, Guia, and Muñoz 159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

06:

31 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Dickinson, J., & Lumsdon, L. (2010). Slow travel andtourism. London: Earthscan.

Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view:Cooperative strategies and sources of interorganiza-tional competitive advantage. Academy ofManagement Review, 23(4), 660–679.

Fog, K., Budtz, C., & Yakaboylu, B. (2005). Storytelling:Branding in practice. Copenhagen: Springer.

Getz, D., & Carlsen, J. (2005). A framework for familybusiness theory and research in tourism and hospitality.Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 237–258.

Giraud, C. (2007). Accueillir le touriste en ami. Actes DeLa Recherche En Sciences Sociales, 170, 14–32.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everydaylife. New York, NY: Doubleday and Co.

Gosálvez. (2006). El Louvre para otro día, hoy toca uncafé: Viajar sin prisas ni visitas obligadas y hacer loque a uno le apetezca. Cada vez más turistas se apuntana la idea del viaje lento. El Turista Indiscreto: El País.

Gration, D., Raciti, M., & Arcodia, C. (2011). The role ofconsumer self-concept in marketing festivals. Journalof Travel and Tourism Marketing, 28, 644–655.

Habbershon, T.G., & Williams, M.L. (1999). A resource-based framework fo rassessing the strategic advantagesof family firms. Family Business Review, 12(1), 1–25.

Habbershon, T. G., Williams, M. L., & MacMillan, I. C.(2003). A unified systems perspective of family firm per-formance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 451–465.

Han, H., & Back, K. J. (2007). Assessing customers'emotional experiences influencing their satisfaction inthe lodging industry. Journal of Travel & TourismMarketing, 23(1), 43–56.

Hanks, P. (Ed.). (1989). The Collins concise dictionaryplus. Glasgow: Collins.

Irava, W. J. (2009). Familiness Qualities, EntrepreneurialOrientation and Long-term Performance Advantage,PhD, ePublications@bond, Faculty of Business,Technology and Sustainable Development.

Irava, W. J., & Moores, K. (2010). Clarifying the strategicadvantage of familiness: Unbundling its dimensionsand highlighting its paradoxes. Journal of FamilyBusiness Strategy, 1(3), 131–144.

Jones, E., & Haven-Tang, C. (2005). Tourism SMEs,service quality and destination competitiveness. In E.Jones & C. Haven-Tang (Eds.), Tourism SMEs, servicequality and destination competitiveness (pp. 1–24).Wallingford: CABI publishing.

Kim, J. H. (2010). Determining the factors affecting thememorable nature of travel experiences. Journal ofTravel & Tourism Marketing, 27(8), 780–796.

Klein, S. B., Astrachan, J. H., & Smymios, K. X. (2005).The F-PEC scale of family influence: Construction,validation, and further implication for theory.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 321–339.

Kumar, A., Olshavsky, R., & King, M. F. (2001).Exploring alterative antecedents of customer delight.

Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction andComplaining Behavior, 14, 14–26.

Larsen, J. (2008). De-exoticizing tourist travel: Everydaylife and sociality on the move. Leisure Studies, 27(1),21–34.

Larsen, J., Axhausen, K., & Urry, J. (2006). Geographiesof social networks: Meetings, travel and communica-tions. Mobilities, 1(2), 261–283.

Lashley, C. (2000). Hospitality retail management: A unitmanager’s guide. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Lashley, C., Lynch, P., & Morrison, A. (2007). Hospitality:A social lens. Kidlington: Advances in TourismResearch Series.

Lashley, C., & Morrison, A. (2003). Hospitality as a “com-mercial friendship”. Hospitality Review, 6(3), 31–36.

Lashley, C., Morrison, A., & Randall, S. (2004). My mostmemorable meal ever! Hospitality as an emotionalexperience. In D. Sloan (Ed.), Culinary taste (pp.165–184). Oxford: Elsevier.

Loureiro, S. M. C. (2010). Satisfying and delighting therural tourists. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,27(4), 396–408.

MacCannell, D. (1999). The tourist. A new theory of theleisure class. Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress. (Orig. Published 1976).

Matos, R. (2004). Can slow tourism bring new life to alpineregions?. In K. Weiermair & C. Mathies (Eds.), Thetourism and leisure industry: Shaping the future (pp.93–103). New York, NY: The Haworth Hospitality Press.

Mattila, A. S., & Enz, C. A. (2002). The role ofemotions in service encounters. Journal of ServiceResearch, 4(4), 268–277.

Micelotta, E., & Raynard, M. (2011). Concealing or reveal-ing the family? Corporate brand identity strategies infamily firms. Family Business Review, 24(3), 197–216.

Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitativeresearch. London: Sage.

Morgan, B., & Botero, I. C. (2010). Branding the “FamilyBusiness” using organitzational web pages: Exploringwho references ownership and how they do it. Paperpresented at the Family Enterprise ResearchConference (FERC), Cancun, Mexico.

Mullins, L. J. (1995). Hospitality management: A humanresources approach (2nd ed.). London: Pitman.

Narva, R. (2001). Heritage and tradition family business:How family-controlled enterprises connect the experi-ence of their past to the promise of the future. In G. K.McCann & N. Upton (Eds.), Destroying Myths andCreating Value in Family Business (pp. 29–38).Deland, FL: Stetson University.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creat-ing company. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Nordqvist, M., & Melin, L. (2010). The promise of thestrategy as practice perspective for family businessstrategy research. Journal of Family BusinessStrategy, 1(1), 15–25.

160 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

06:

31 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Nyenrode Now. (2008). Family business: Research resultsFD Nyenrode Monitor Family Business fourth edition.Breukelen, Netherlands: Nyenrode University.

O’Connor, P. (1999). Electronic information distributionin tourism and hospitality. Wallingford: CABInternational.

Olsen, K. (2002). Authenticity as a concept in tourismresearch: The social organization of the experience ofauthenticity. Tourist Studies, 2(2), 159–182.

Parmentier, M. A. (2011). When David met Victoria:Forging a strong family brand. Family BusinessReview, 24(3), 217–232.

Peters, T. J., & Austin, N. (1985). A passion for excellence:The leadership difference. NewYork, NY:Warner Books.

Peters, M., & Frehse, J. (2011). Small and family busi-nesses as service brands: An empirical analysis in thehotel industry. International Journal Entrepreneurshipand Small Business, 12(1), 28–43.

Pieper, T. M., & Klein, S. B. (2007). The bulleye: Asystems approach to modeling family business.Family Business Review, 20(4), 301–319.

Polany, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Oxford: University of Chicago Press.

Powers, T., & Barrows, C. W. (1999). Introduction to theHospitality Industry. New York, NY: Wiley.

Presas Maynegre, P., Muñoz, M. D., & Guia, J. (2011).Branding familiness in tourism firms. Journal of BrandManagement, 18, 274–284.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.Schutz, A. (1944). The stranger: An essay in social psy-

chology. American Journal of Sociology, 50, 499–507.Schwass, J., Smit, W., Dogra, A. M., & Moeller, L. (2009).

Who’s family? Who’s not?: Take the family businessbrand test. Tomorrow’s challenges, 5.

Sebele, L. S. (2010). Community –based tourism ventures,benefits and challenges: Khama Rhino SanctuaryTrust”, Central District, Botswana. TourismManagement, 31, 136–146.

Simmel, G. (1949). The sociology of sociability. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 55, 254–261.

Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2003). Managing resources:Linking unique resources, management, and wealth

creation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, 27(4), 339–358.

Stal, P. (2010). Family business brands. Tharawat maga-zine: The Arabian Publication for Family Businesses,8, 44–51.

Swap, W., Leornard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams, L.(2001). Using mentoring and storytelling to transferknowledge in the workplace. Journal of ManagementInformation Systems, 18(1), 95–114.

Telfer, E. (2000). The philosophy of hospitableness. In C.Lasley & A. Morrison, (Eds.), In search of hospitality:Theoretical perspectives and debates (pp. 38–55).Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Uriely, N. (2010). “Home” and “away” in VFR tourism.Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 854–857.

Wang, N. (2000). Tourism and modernity: A sociologicalanalysis. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Wanhill, S. (1997). Peripheral area tourism: A Europeanperspective. Progress in Tourism and HospitalityReseach, 3, 47–70.

Wanhill, S. (2000). Small and medium tourismenterprises. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1),132–147.

Watson, S., & Austerberry, H. (1985). Housing and home-lessness; A Feminist perspective. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.

White, N. R., & White, P. B. (2007). Home and away.Tourists in a connected world. Annals of TourismResearch, 34(1), 88–104.

Wood, R. C. (1994). Hotel culture and social control.Annals of Tourism Research, 21, 65–80.

Zellweger, T., Eddleston, K. H., & Kellermanns, F. W.(2010). Exploring the concept of familiness:Introducing family firm identity. Journal of FamilyBusiness Strategy, 1(1), 1–10.

SUBMITTED: May 15, 2012FINAL REVISION SUBMITTED:

October 3, 2012ACCEPTED: December 18, 2012REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY

Presas, Guia, and Muñoz 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

06:

31 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014