at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 36 (2013) 153e163

Contents lists available

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Does authenticity really affect behavior? The case of the Strasbourg ChristmasMarket

Herbert Castéran*, Claire Roederer 1

University of Strasbourg, EM Strasbourg, 61 Avenue de la Forêt-Noire, 67085 Strasbourg Cedex, France

h i g h l i g h t s

< The perceived authenticity has an impact on tourist behavior.< Its monetary value is measured in the case of the Strasbourg Christmas Market.< The more loyal to its origins the market, the more loyal the visitors.< Authenticity represents a measurable financial asset for sites.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 July 2011Accepted 12 November 2012

Keywords:Tourism eventAuthenticityTourist behaviorValueChristmas market

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ33 3 68 85 88 73.E-mail addresses: herbert.casteran@em-stras

claire.roederer@em-strasbourg.eu (C. Roederer).1 Tel.: þ33 3 68 85 83 93.

0261-5177/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.012

a b s t r a c t

The study of tourism has made authenticity a central issue. Based on the case of the Strasbourg ChristmasMarket, a successful annual tourist event, this research combines qualitative and quantitative data toanalyze how the perception of authenticity is constructed and how authenticity can explain behavior.The dimensions of authenticity of a tourist site (Camus, 2010), namely originality, in the sense that themarket is seen as ‘an original’, and a lack of artificial components, clearly explain differences in visitingfrequency in the case of the Strasbourg Christmas Market. In addition, based on our data, we assess thefinancial value of authenticity and show that authenticity, a concept whose value is sometimes intenselyquestioned, can indeed be operationalized.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Can authenticity really affect the frequency of visits to a touristsite? In December 2010, a regional newspaper presenting the 2010Strasbourg Christmas Market clearly raised this issue, thusreflecting the growing sensitivity of consumers to the question ofauthenticity. Authenticity as a construct is also receiving a greatdeal of attention from consumer researchers at this time.

Strasbourg features the oldest Christmas market in France; it firsttookplace in1570and today is the largest Christmasmarket inFrance.The Strasbourg Christmas Market is not unique; in the Alsace region,Christmas markets have also proliferated in recent years. However,Strasbourg remains the largest and the oldest in the area. “Christ-kindelsmärik”, as the market is called in the Alsatian language, takesover the city’s historic district every year from December to early

bourg.eu (H. Castéran),

All rights reserved.

January and constitutes an important event for the citizens of Stras-bourg and for numerous tourists from France and all over the world.

However, the market has also generated passionate debatescenteredon thequestionof its authenticity. The authenticity issuehasbeen noted spontaneously by visitors, and stakeholders have eagerlycommentedon the samequestion. Eachyear, anychange in the visitornumbers at the market are claimed to be linked to the authenticityissue, and some journalists have suggested courses of action that themarket organizers might pursue to achieve greater authenticity.Nevertheless, a clear understanding of how perceptions of authen-ticity affect consumer behavior has yet to be established.

Authenticity can be defined as a concept that encapsulates whatis genuine, real, and/or true. That being said there exist differentconceptualizations of authenticity and ways of operationalizingthose ideas (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010; Grayson & Martinec, 2004;Peterson, 2005; Reisinger & Steiner, 2006). Recent contributionshave tended to address these criticisms by providing new insights.For instance, Beverland and Farrelly (2010) establish howconsumers’personal goals influence how they perceive authenticity. Chhabra(2010) explores how consumer age and life experience affectperceptions of authenticity. Although authenticity can be a concern

H. Castéran, C. Roederer / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 153e163154

with any type of product, authenticity is particularly central intourism (Getz, 2008). Even if some tourists expect to be entertainedregardless of the authenticity of a tourist site (Cohen, 1979; Urry,1990), authenticity matters to most visitors. In this context, Kolarand Zabkar (2010) measure how the perceived authenticity oftourist sites affects visitors’ attitudinal loyalty.

To our knowledge, however, the impact of perceived authen-ticity on behavior has not yet been studied. In line with Kolar andZabkar (2010), we propose to measure this impact and assess thevalue of authenticity. This approach can help make it possible tooperationalize the concept of authenticity while at simultaneouslyimproving how it is conceptualized.

This article combines an interpretative approach with Camus’s(2010) scale for measuring the authenticity of tourist sites toestablish: (1) how visitors to the Strasbourg Christmas Market(thereafter referred to as the SChM) perceive its authenticity; (2)how this perception can be related to past and present visitingpatterns; (3) how this perception can affect visitors’ future loyaltyto this annual event; and (4) how the value of authenticity can beassessed based on visit recency and frequency.

SChM thus provides a rich context in which to address researchquestions that are relevant from both theoretical and managerialperspectives. The structure of this article is as follows. First, weprovide a review of the literature on authenticity and eventtourism. We then justify the choice of SChM as our field of studyand outline the methods employed to address our research ques-tions. Next, we present our findings. We identify the links betweendimensions of authenticity (originality in the sense that the market

Table 1Conceptualization of authenticity in tourism a few landmarks.

Main findings Authors Modernistapproach

Authenticity is anattribute of an object

Authenticity as an‘objective’ concept

As an attribute of a touristobject? Object authenticity

Boorstin (1964)Tourists, as modernpilgrims in searchof authenticity, haveonly access to“staged authenticity”(MacCannell, 1973,1976)

Authenticity as a socialconstruct þ focus on theauthentification process

Existential authenticity Wang(1999)

Suggestion to abandon theconcept of authenticity andreconceptualize object“authenticity”

Reisinger andSteiner (2006)

Lau (2010)

Genres of authenticity basedon Gilmore and Pine (2007)typology

Andriotis (2011)

Tourism as a secular ritualThe concept of aura to link

objective authenticity toauthenticated touristexperience

is seen as ‘an original’ and artificiality) and behavior based onqualitative and quantitative data. We thus operationalize authen-ticity that has, at times, been questioned as a construct (Lau, 2010;Reisinger & Steiner, 2006). We show that authenticity does indeedmatter and affects not only attitudinal loyalty (Kolar & Zabkar,2010) but actual behavior. We conclude the article with a discus-sion of our theoretical contributions, managerial implications andsuggestions for future research.

2. Theoretical background

Authenticity is a complex issue which has generated muchliterature in tourism studies. To structure our theoretical back-ground and limit its boundaries, we have chosen to organize it asfollows. After introducing the general topic of authenticity intourist consumption, we identify landmarks in its conceptualiza-tion (Table 1). We then focus on two issues that serve our researchobjectives: authenticity as a perceptual process and the measure ofauthenticity of tourist sites.

2.1. Authenticity and consumption

The determinants of tourism should be validated and quantifiedusing a consumer-based approach. Tourist events in particular haveassumed increasing importance in the promotion of destinations(Getz, 2008). Tourist events have been defined as spatialetemporalphenomenon, unique because of the interactions that they createbetween setting, people and management system. They include

Constructivistapproach

Postmodernistapproach

Authenticity is a socialconstruct and the resultof a perceptual processof interpretation

Authenticity or inauthenticityare not relevant in tourism

(Hughes, 1995;Taylor, 2001)Indexical and iconicauthenticity to feed(Grayson & Martinec, 2004)A process contingent onthe consumer’s goals(Beverland & Farrelly, 2010)

As a reproduction can be perceivedas more real than the actual object,authenticity is not historical butvisual, the result of a perceptualprocess, and not attached to anobject (Eco, 1986)

Objective and constructivistopposed to existentialauthenticityderived from theexperience

Rickly-Boyd (2012)

H. Castéran, C. Roederer / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 153e163 155

offerings of various kinds according to Getz’s (2008) typology ofplanned events, ranging from cultural celebrations, political andstate events, business and trade to educational and scientificevents, athletic competitions, and private events. By taking part toevents, visitors have experiences, that they expect to be authentic.

“Authenticity is implicitly a polemical concept” (Trilling, 1972, p.94). The concept of authenticity is mostly mentioned when theauthenticity of a particular thing or experience is being questioned(Chalmers & Price, 2009). Debates about the meaning of authen-ticity have been occurred in many disciplines, including ethnology,art and law (Camus, 2004), but the concept is also receivingincreasing attention from consumer researchers. Althoughconsumer demand for authenticity is nothing new, the quest forauthenticity seems to underpin consumption choices more andmore often (Brown, Sherry, & Kozinets, 2003). Postmodernconsumers known to question/reconsider metanarratives of themodern era, tend as a result to suffer from a loss of landmarks. Thequest for landmarks can to some extent explain their yearning forauthenticity in consumption as a source of meaning in their lives(Beverland & Farrelly, 2010; Gilmore & Pine, 2007).

Andriotis (2011) notices that studies that attempt to clarify theconcept of authenticity adopt either a supply perspective ofauthenticity focusing on object authenticity, or a demandperspective which deals with the authenticity derived from theconsumption of or interaction with a tourist site. The supply of“authentic economic offerings” can potentially help tap intoconsumers’ demand for authenticity (Gilmore & Pine, 2007).However, capturing the strategic dimension of authenticity inproviding appropriate offerings requires a close analysis of whatauthenticity entails from a consumer standpoint and how it affectshis/her behavior.

2.2. Authenticity as a result of a perceptual process

A few landmarks on how authenticity in tourism has beenconceptualized are presented in Table 1. Table 1 is organized aroundthree main approaches of authenticity: a modernist approachwhich holds that authenticity is an object attribute, a constructivistapproach which posits that authenticity is a social constructresulting from a process of interpretation, and a postmodernistperspective that suggests that authenticity or inauthenticity is notrelevant in tourism (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Wang, 1999). AsChalmers and Price (2009) point out, consumer research firstfocused its efforts on studying the authenticity of referents such asobjects, people and experiences before examining authenticrepresentations of objects, people or experiences. Boorstin (1964)suggests that authenticity is an objective concept based upona static understanding of place and culture. Hughes (1995) andTaylor (2001) argue that authenticity is not static because cultureschange, and therefore authenticity is to be viewed as a socialconstruct that can evolve in time.

Several contributions have further defined authenticity bycharacterizing it in different ways. Various related adjectives areused to distinguish between original, staged, fabricated, iconic,indexical, self-referential and symbolic objects or experiences(Beverland & Farrelly, 2010). Authenticity therefore appears diffi-cult to conceptualize, and examining its impact on consumerbehavior can provide a better understanding of the concept itself.

Previous studies highlight that authenticity should not beconsidered an attribute of an object but should instead be seen asthe outcome of the interpretation process that the perceiverundergoes (Hughes, 1995; Taylor, 2001). Assessing whethera product, brand or place is authentic or not entails a complexperceptual process (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010) in which theconsumer selects from a set of cues (Grayson & Martinec, 2004)

attached to a given product/brand or context to build his/her ownperception of how authentic an object is. The clarification of thisprocess helps understand how Eco (1986) can posit that authen-ticity is not historical but visual. As a matter of fact for someconsumers if something looks real, it is real. In some cases, repro-duction of an object is being perceived as more real than the actualobject.

Basing their analysis on Peirce’s semiotic approach, Grayson andMartinec (2004) provide insight into the nature of the cues thatconsumers read to build their perceptions of authenticity. Theythus distinguish between indexical and iconic authenticity. Whenthe word authentic designates something real, genuine or original,we are dealing with indexical authenticity. Indexical authenticity isbuilt from cues that are thought to have a factual link with anoriginal or pre-existing reality. The term “iconic authenticity”indicates that the thing in question resembles something that isindexically authentic. Grayson and Martinec (2004) illustrate thisconcept with their example of silver pieces bought in amuseum giftshop. These pieces exemplify iconic authenticity in the sense thatthey are faithful to the ‘original’ even though they are not originalsper se. To be able to assess iconic authenticity, a consumer musthave an idea of what the ‘real thing’ looks like, whereas to deter-mine indexical authenticity, s/he needs to have access to elementsof verification.

Although it can be used in all kind of contexts, the constructivistanalysis of authentication, which involves the perception ofdifferent types of cues followed by their interpretation, is useful indetermining the degree of authenticity of a tourist destination ora tourist site. In building their perceptions of the authenticity ofSChM, visitors interpret a set of indexical cues (a cathedral; Stras-bourg’s medieval streets and architectural heritage) and iconic cues(multiple references to an imagined past; representations of SantaClaus staged by the market organizers).

2.3. Authenticity of the object vs. authenticity of the experience

Wang (1999) further explores the meaning of authenticity intourist experiences and states that authenticity is the result ofa projection of tourists’ own beliefs, expectations and preferences,thus pointing out the limits of the object-related type of authen-ticity. Wang (1999) further suggests a useful distinction betweenthe authenticity of an object and the authenticity of an experience.Building upon this distinction, Wang (1999) introduces the conceptof ‘existential authenticity’. Rickly-Boyd (2012) suggests theconcept of aura to link objective authenticity to an authenticatedtourist experience therefore to existential authenticity. Existentialauthenticity emerges from the lived experience of the tourist andrelies on intrapersonal sources (e.g., bodily feelings) and interper-sonal sources (e.g., family ties and tourist communitas). The exis-tential authenticity approach (1999) is also a focus of Author(2008), who identifies dimensions of consumption experiences. Itcould be suggested that the dimensions of an experience (namelythe hedonico-sensorial, sociocultural rhetoric, praxeologic, andtime-related dimensions) are what structures existential authen-ticity. Thus, we are dealing with a perceptual process of deter-mining the authenticity of a tourist site and an existential form ofauthenticity derived from the visitor’s lived experience.

2.4. Measuring authenticity of a tourist site

As a declarative tool, the Camus scale (2010; Table 2) capturesthe outcome of an interpretation process carried out by participantsto assess authenticity (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). The itemsaddress the authenticity of a tourist site and therefore can beconsidered to evaluate the authenticity of an object (Reisinger &

Table 2Camus scale of authenticity (2010) for tourist sites adapted to Strasbourg ChristmasMarket.

Items Link to Grayson andMartinec (2004)

1 Had the essentialnature of Christmasmarkets beenrespected, the SChMwould have beendifferent

Iconic (in) authenticity

2 The SChM includesartificial elements

Iconic (in) authenticity

3 The SChM is a productof techniques and/ormaterials that are not alloriginal

Iconic (in) authenticity

4 The SChM is not animitation

Indexical authenticity

5 The SChM is the original,not a copy

Indexical authenticity

6 The SChM is the originalChristmas market

Indexical authenticity

H. Castéran, C. Roederer / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 153e163156

Steiner, 2006;Wang,1999). Even if Camus (2010) does not explicitlymention it, the scale also encapsulates elements that can beconstrued as indexical and iconic cues of authenticity (Table 2). Thetwo dimensions of the scale (artificiality vs. originality) can belinked to the two types of authenticity identified by Grayson andMartinec (2004). Iconic authenticity is built from cues that visu-ally represent the ‘real thing’, the ‘original’. The first three itemsrefer to artificial cues embedded in the market offer. To addressitems 1 through 3, participants need to think of observable cues inthe SChM that they feel indicate that the market is not the ‘realthing’ but rather betrays the original because of its artificial nature.As for items 4e6, they deal with indexical authenticity, indicatingthat the market is the ‘original’ and not a copy. To answer items 4e6, participants need to find cues indicating whether this is true ofthe market.

The scale has appropriate psychometric qualities (Camus, 2010).Those qualities are confirmed through a confirmatory analysis(Appendix). The scale makes it possible to capture two dimensionsof authenticity (originality and artificiality) and to examine thesedimensions’ impact on behavior.

3. Application to the Strasbourg Christmas Market

3.1. Strasbourg Christmas Market

Tourism destinations throughout the world are competing todevelop offerings that distinguish them from other destinationsand enable them to attract steady streams of visitors. The themes ofChristmas and Santa Claus are sufficiently colorful and universal toappeal to the masses and facilitate destination positioning withinwhat Pretes (1995) refers to postmodern tourism, in which touristsconsume images, representations and signs more than reality.

The Christmas market is hosted in popular areas of the city. Thetheme is obviously “Christmas”, and thus the market offers a widerange of local and non-local Christmas decorations, Christmas treesand regional food. At Christmas time, the market makes Strasbourgvery attractive compared to other French or European cities;indeed, many people link Strasbourg with its Christmas market,and the city may be defined more by this aspect of its identity thanby its character as a European city. Boasting 2.2 million visitors in2009 and a global tourism income of an estimated 160 millioneuros including housing (Hertrich, Author, & Badot, 2010), the

SChM is by all measures the most important tourist event inStrasbourg in terms of visitors and outcomes, relying on its self-proclaimed identity as an “authentic” and “original” event, if nota unique attraction. Nevertheless, a close observation of the SChM’sofferings reveals that it includes numerous elements that areneither local nor even linked to Christmas or Christianity, whichmay jeopardize its claim to authenticity. Those points feed a debatesurrounding the SChM’s authenticity that is referenced on a regularbasis in the media and by stakeholders in the local press (Hertrichet al., 2010). For example, in 2010, Strasbourg’s mayor decided toforbid the sale of churros (Spanish pastries) on the market becauseof their lack of link to Christmas; this decision generated fiercereactions in the media and fed the ongoing debate about theSChM’s authenticity.

The SChM has been described as an ephemeral experientialenvironment, a hyperreal product recreating the “magic ofChristmas” through a system of signs (Hertrich et al., 2010). It canbe construed as a themed environment (Gottdiener, 1997) thatcreates a Christmas atmosphere in the very heart of Strasbourgthroughout the Advent period. Working from Getz’s (2008)typology of planned events, one might posit that the SChM fallsinto two categories: “cultural celebrations” because of Christmasand “business and trade” because it is a market. In 1990, it wasdecided that the SChM would become a central attraction topromote Strasbourg as a tourist destination in the off-peak season.

3.2. Data/fieldwork administration

The data for our analysis come from a web survey. The surveywas administrated at the beginning of the 2010 SChM, betweenDecember 16th 2010 and January 4th 2011. The links were given onthe very popular local newspaper, on the alumni site and the citysite. The survey was announced through newspaper announce-ments and by direct e-mailing if possible (10 000 e-mails). Overall,645 usable questionnaires were collected.

The questionnaire includes three sets of variables:

(1) Behavior: year of first and last visit; frequency of visits to the2010 SChM

(2) Perceived authenticity based on the Camus scale (7-point scale;1: strongly disagree e 7: strongly agree) and open questions

(3) The socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents: age, sex,location and socioeconomic status (SES).

3.3. Methodology

We use two approaches depending on the variable types.To process the qualitative data, we analyzed the transcripts of

645 answers to the following open question: “For you, what is anauthentic Christmas market?” After a closed reading of the textualdata, we carried out a semantic andword occurrence analysis. Next,we began open-coding our corpus of answers and developedcategories associated with various dimensions of the authenticityof a Christmas market. All of these procedures were completedusing the N’Vivo software.

To process the quantitative data, we analyzed two variables: thetiming of the last visit and visit frequency for the 2010 SChM.During a given period, a low time interval between visits (i.e., a lowrecency level) indicates not just repeat visits but also, presumably,repeat purchases. Behavioral loyalty can be defined with referenceto repeat-buying behavior (for example, Ehrenberg, Goodhardt, &Barwise, 1990; Fader & Schmittlein, 1993). The recency of the lastvisit is thus a proxy for behavioral loyalty: the more recent the lastvisit, the higher the number of visits for the 2010 SChM and the

Table 3Respondents’ geographic origins.

Rate

Strasbourg & conglomeration (0e10 km) 55%Rest of Alsace, Strasbourg’s state (10e100 km) 20%Paris & conglomeration (600 km) 7%Rest of France 10%Germany 2%

Table 4Respondents’ characteristics.

Alsaceinhabitants

Visitors

Socioeconomicstatus (SES)

High SES 53% 67%Middle and low SES 15% 15%Jobless 27% 14%Retired 5% 4%Two-sided asymptotic significanceof the Pearson Chi-Square Test

0.004

Age 18e24 28% 14%

H. Castéran, C. Roederer / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 153e163 157

greater the behavioral loyalty. This measure of loyalty based onactual visit behavior differs from those used by Kolar and Zabkar(2010) or Chi and Qu (2008); both of those studies focus on atti-tudinal loyalty (readiness to visit a site or recommend to friends).

Visit frequency within the same year can be used to estimate theamount spent by the customer. A study of the Alsace Region (2009)has determined that the average total purchase made during eachvisit costs 28 V. Based on this figure, visit frequency indicates theglobal amount spent.

The model type depends on the variables. The number of yearssince the last visit (mean: 1.4, variance: 3.7, max: 43) is a numericalvariable. We represent the link between this variable and the othervariables using a linear regression. The linear regression expressesthe relationship between a dependent variable y (here the numberof years since the last visit) and a set of independent variables {x1,., xn} through the following expression (let 3 be error):

y ¼ b0 þXni¼1

bixi þ 3

The visit frequency data are count data. We employ two widelyused count data models: the Poisson model and the negativebinomial model. The moments of those distributions are as follows:

EðyÞ ¼ m and VðyÞ

¼�m ðif Poisson modelÞmþ km2 ðif negative binomial modelÞ

Themain constraint of the Poisson approach is equal dispersion:equality between the mean and the variance of the variable. In ourdataset, the mean (1.52) and the variance (1.61) are almost equal. Inthis case, the negative binomial formulation, which allows over-dispersion, has no utility. However, we use both approaches toaccount for the unlikely possibility of overdispersion. The value ofthe ancillary parameter k is central: if the estimation of the negativebinomial yields a value of k that is close to 0, then the Poissonmodel is preferable (a null value for k implies that the negativebinomial model collapses into a Poisson model).

Based on the Poisson model, the average visit frequency l takesthe following form:

l ¼ exp

b0 þ

Xni¼1

bixi

!

To sum up, the model process is the following (Fig. 1).The dependent variable of model 1 (number of years since the

last visit) is a potential explanatory variable of model 2 (visitfrequency).

All treatments are made using the R software (R DevelopmentCore Team, version 13.0).

4. Results

The descriptive results that we provide offer a comprehensiveoverview of our dataset. We also present qualitative results relatedto components of authenticity. Then, we model the link betweenbehavior and authenticity perception in order to quantify theauthenticity value.

Model 1Dependent variable:# of years since the last visit

Count variableModel: Poisson or NBD model

Model 2Dependent variable:Visit frequency

Numerical variableModel: linear regression

Explanatory variable

Fig. 1. Model process.

4.1. Sample description

The geographical origins of the visitors are diverse. Although itmight logically be assumed that most of the visitors would be fromStrasbourg and the surrounding area, this is actually true for onlyhalf of the respondents. Visitors coming from outside Alsace(Strasbourg’s state) account for a quarter of the visitors. The SChMis clearly nationally and even internationally known (Table 3).

For the socio-demographic characteristics, we distinguish theresidents i.e. the Alsace inhabitants and the visitors (coming fromoutside Alsace). This distinction is based on two criteria: the first oneis the geographical proximity with the SChM and the second one isthe cultural proximity as far the Alsacian culture is specific.

The sums can be different from 0 due to the rouding.The men are slightly overrepresented in the sample, comprising

50.8% of the respondents. By comparison, this rate is 48.4% inFrance and 48.2% in Strasbourg (2010 French census). There is nosignificant difference between geographic origins (the two-sidedasymptotic significance equals to 0.256).

The structure of the sub-populations, visitors and inhabitants, isquite different. The proportion of high-SES individuals is signifi-cantly higher for the visitors. Jobless people are logically under-represented for the visitors. The mean age is not significantlydifferent between those sub-populations (34.7 years old) (Table 4).

On average, the individuals in the samplemade their first visit tothe SChM 16 years ago (Table 5). Thus, these visitors exhibit long-standing connections with the SChM. These results indicate thestrength and durability of these connections. The 2010 visitfrequencymean is 1.5 (Table 5); 29% of the respondents did not visitthe SchM in 2010. In other words, although not all of the respon-dents visited the 2010 SChM, they have done so in the past.

4.2. Qualitative results: the authenticity dimensions of SChM

First, the two dimensions of authenticity included in the Camus(2010) scale also logically appear in the answers to the open-ended

25e34 29% 46%35e44 20% 21%45e54 13% 9%55e64 7% 8%65e74 2% 2%75 and More 0% 0%Two-sided asymptotic significanceof the Pearson Chi-Square Test

0.001

Table 5Respondents’ behavior.

Alsaceinhabitants

Visitors P-value(2-tailed)

Date-of-first-visit 17 Years ago 14 Years ago 0.00Recency (date-of-

last-visit)0.8 year ago 3.3 years ago

No visit in 2010(rate)

20% 55% 0.00

2010 frequency 1.8 0.8 0.00

Determinants of SChM authenticity

Origin of the offer (made in)

Local origin

Regional origin

Respect for tradition

Craftmen know how, art

Staged craft process

Link to Christmas

Christmas as a theme Christmas

Christmas as a religious celebration

Christmas as a season, winter

Commercial offerings

Fig. 2. Coding categories.

H. Castéran, C. Roederer / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 153e163158

question “For you, what is an authentic Christmas market?”. Forexample, the focus on what is an ‘original’ can be perceived in thefollowing comment: “an authentic Christmas market retains animage close to that of the original Christmas markets” (Female, 35years old, living in the south of France). Concerns regarding artifi-ciality, for instance, are reflected in the statement “an authenticChristmas market is the opposite of a supermarket.” (Male, 53 yearsold, living in Alsace)

In describing an authentic Christmas market, the participantsclearly link its authenticity to the authenticity of its commercialofferings and to the size of the market. Even if some participantspoint out the non-commercial dimension of Christmas, overallagreement emerges that an authentic market is fundamentallya market, with commercial exchange at the heart of what takesplace there. As a result, the authenticity of the market products,whether food products, decorations or Christmas presents,contributes to the overall market’s authenticity. The commercialofferings provide visitors with potential cues regarding themarket’s authenticity.

The authenticity of the commercial offerings involves threeseparate elements: (1) the origin of the offerings; (2) respect fortradition, and (3) what the product has to do with Christmas(Fig. 2). To be perceived as authentic, products must be locallyproduced, which in the context of the SChM means that they mustbe made in Alsace. In assessing respect for tradition, participantspay attention to howand bywhom products are manufactured. Theuse of the word “craftsmen” illustrates this point. Participantscombine “made in” cueswith “made by” cues to assess authenticity.Moreover, if craftsmen are able to demonstrate part of their “craft”process (when the process is visually appealing), it apparentlyincreases perceived authenticity by providing visitors with visualevidence that traditions or at least shared representations oftraditions are indeed respected. Offering such demonstrations forvisitors also creates an entertaining spectacle and is educational,fostering perceptions of authenticity by revealing workshopsecrets. Some participants express understandably negativeimpressions of products that are not “handmade” but are insteadclearly mass-produced or “made in China”. Visitors reject products‘made in China’ because they assume that these are industrializedproducts rather than handmade ones (and because they clearly arenot made by local craftsmen). This is the case even if the productfeatures a clear link to the Christmas theme (for example, Christmastree decorations made in China that are sold in the market wouldfall into this category).

The participants also mentioned other cues related to howproducts have been manufactured. Whereas wood seems to berecognized as a central and legitimate material in the Christmasmarket, plastic is strongly rejected by some participants. Woodrepresents nature, craftsmen and Christmas. “An authenticChristmas market would not even use electricity; it would only usecandles and wood [.]. The sellers would be only local craftsmen”.(Female, 23 years old, not a resident of Strasbourg). “An authentic

Christmas market offers traditional productse even innovative onese[they are] local, are related to Christmas (food, presents, decorations)”(Male, 47 years old, not living in Strasbourg)

In examining the perceived relationships of products withChristmas, we find that informants associate a spectrum of mean-ings with Christmas. Christmas can be understood as a set of values(such as generosity, family and children, sharing, caring for others,human warmth) irrespective of one’s religion, as a Christian cele-bration or a religious event, and in some cases as a mere season(winter). Correspondingly, the participants assess a product’srelation to Christmas based on their own interpretation of theholiday’s meaning. “An authentic Christmas market should be a -religious and Christian one. Nativity should be its central pillar”(Female, 23 years old, not a resident of Strasbourg). “[A Christmasmarket] should offer seasonal products and allow a return to originalvalues including festive celebration and sharing” (Male, 28 years old,living in Strasbourg).

4.3. Measures of authenticity dimensions

Based on 7-point scales, the measures of the dimensions ofauthenticity are as follows (Table 6):

The two main dimensions of the Camus scale (2010) playa significant role. The first dimension of authenticity, whichaddresses the question of whether some elements of themarket areartificial, is quite important. The SChM is generally perceived ascontaining artificial components. However, the participants exhibitstrong positive agreement regarding the second dimension, whichaddresses whether the market is original or fake (Dovey, 1985): theSChM is perceived as an original rather than a reproductionwithouthistorical roots.

To measure the perceived authenticity level of the market, wemust model the relationship between the dependent variable (visitrecency and frequency) and the explanatory variables (thoserelated to socioeconomic characteristics and perceptions regardingauthenticity).

4.4. Parameter estimation: the impact of authenticity on behavior

Visit frequency represents the transactional component,whereas recency, a proxy for loyalty, makes it possible to betterunderstand the overall relationship between perception of

Table 7Visit frequency (Poisson regression).

Dependent variable:visit frequency

Estimate Std. error z Value Pr(>jzj)

(Constant) 0.82 0.15 5.52 0.00Recency (# of years

since the last visit)�0.27 0.04 �7.48 0.00

The SChM includesartificial elements

�0.06 0.02 �2.39 0.02

High SES �0.20 0.07 �2.92 0.00Retired �0.47 0.19 �2.42 0.02

Table 6Perceived authenticity.

Mean Median

The Strasbourg ChristmasMarket is not an imitation

5.21 6.00

Had the essential nature ofChristmas markets beenrespected, the SChM wouldhave been different

4.71 5.00

The SChM includes artificialelements

5.75 6.00

The SChM is a product oftechniques and/or materialsthat are not all original

5.12 5.00

The SChM is the original, nota copy

5.28 6.00

The Strasbourg ChristmasMarket is the original Christmasmarket

4.19 4.00

H. Castéran, C. Roederer / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 153e163 159

authenticity and behavior. In those models, all of the variables (thesocioeconomic characteristics, the behavioral aspects, and theperceived degree of authenticity) are used as explanatory variables.More specifically, the recency and date-of-first-visit variables arepotential explanatory variables for visit frequency. Obviously, visitfrequency does not explain recency. We only retain the explanatoryvariables that are significant at a 5% threshold. This selectionprocess is conducted step by step.

Estimating the negative binomial model parameters yieldsk ¼ 7.4e�08. Given that the value is very close to 0, the use of thePoisson formulation is preferable. At a 5% threshold, we obtain thefollowing significant parameters for the Poisson model (Table 7):

A negative sign indicates decreasing frequency. The marginaleffect (i.e., variation of þ1) of a variable on frequency expectationE(l) is measured by the exponential of its coefficient (eb). Four mainfactors explain the figures for visit frequency in 2010. Recency is animportant explanatory variable: a one-year gap generates a 24%decrease in visit frequency in 2010. On the other hand, geographicalproximity to the SChM increases visit frequency. The SES also playsa role in shaping frequency. High SES or retirement reduces thenumber of visits in the same year. Jobless people and those witha low SES have a higher tendency to re-visit.

The last point concerns perceptions regarding authenticity andartificiality. In this case, the artificiality coefficient, althoughsignificant, seems to be of less importance. If the perceived level ofartificiality of the market increases by one point, visit frequency isreduced by 5.8%. In other words, between two extreme perceivedlevels of artificiality (levels 1 and 7), the decrease in visit frequencyis 30.2%.

The recency variable in this model takes the place of the origi-nality dimension. A model estimated without the recency variableshows originality2 to have the same importance as artificiality(coefficient: 0.057); if perceived originality decreases by one point,visit frequency decreases by 5.5%.

In analyzing recency, we use the following parameters for thelinear regression (Table 8).

This R2 value indicates a lack of variables explaining the averagelength of time that had elapsed since the last visit. However, thereare three variables to consider.

The first is location: the closer the location, the more recent thevisit (a negative sign indicates that the last visit is recent). Thesecond is age: older people exhibit weaker loyalty, but retiredpeople are more regular visitors. It means that age erodes the

2 Given through the formulation: “The SChM is an original not a copy”.

interest for SChM, retirement is an occasion for rediscovering theSChM. The third is perceived authenticity as specifically related tooriginality. Does the SChM seem to be the original market ora reproduction of another market? If the sense that the market isa copy increases by one point, the interval between two visitsincreases by 0.3 years (around 4 months).

Indirectly, this estimation shows that both dimensions ofauthenticity play a significant role in explaining visit frequency.Having measured, the impact of these dimensions of authenticityon behavior, we focus in the following section on how the variouselements contribute to perceived authenticity.

4.5. Value of authenticity

Perceived authenticity has a value. Those individuals whoperceive the market as least authentic visit the market 30.2% lessfrequently than those who rate it as most authentic (1 vs. 7 on theCamus scale). In addition, for the former individuals, recencyincreases by 1.8 years (approximately 22 months). Again, theaverage recency is 1.4 years: thus, the time between visits morethan doubles, and the overall amount of time spent is reduced bynearly one third.

Here is a more concrete example. Given the fact that the averagepurchase amounts to 28 V per visit (Alsace Region, 2009) and, thatthe average visit frequency is 1.5 visits per year, we can assess thevalue of authenticity. In this scenario, a one-point decrease inartificiality means a decrease of 1.6 V spent per year (a 5.8% in theaverage amount spent).

Originality affects both dimensions of authenticity. With a one-point reduction in perceived originality comes a decrease of 5.5% invisit frequency (a decrease of 1.5 visits per year on average), and theinterval between two visits increases by 0.3 years (for an averagerecency of 1.4 years) (Table 9).

The value of authenticity is quite impressive. If both dimensionsof authenticity vary by one point, the value of each visitor isreduced by 8 V each year. If the market has 2.2 million visitors(Hertrich et al., 2010), these one-point changes represent a poten-tial variation in annual revenue of 17.6 million Euros.

5. Discussion

Our results confirm that perceived authenticity does indeedaffect behavioral loyalty regarding an annual event. Authenticityexplains customer loyalty to the event. Moreover, authenticity hasa quantifiable monetary value.

5.1. Authenticity and commerce are not opposed

Consistent with those of previous research (Grayson &Martinec,2004), our results indicate that the participants determineperceived authenticity by perceiving and interpreting cues. The

Location: Strasbourgand surrounding area

0.40 0.08 5.33 0.00

Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC): 1644.1.

Table 8Recency (linear regression).

Dependent variable: # of yearssince last visit

Estimate Std. error t Sig.

(Constant) 2.59 0.75 3.44 0.00Location: Strasbourg and

surrounding area�2.71 0.36 �7.52 0.00

Location: rest of Alsace �2.36 0.45 �5.24 0.00Age 0.07 0.01 5.24 0.00Retired �1.83 0.84 �2.19 0.03The Strasbourg Christmas Market

is the original, not a copy�0.30 0.10 �3.10 0.00

R2 ¼ 0.147.

H. Castéran, C. Roederer / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 153e163160

sources of these cues seem to includememories of past experiencesat Christmas markets (sometimes dating back to childhood), recentmarket visits, perceptions regarding Christmas markets in general(sometimes based on experiences at other Christmas marketsdforinstance, German ones), and perceptions of Christmas. Althoughthis process of interpretation can be considered to yield an object-related type of authenticity, such authenticity is the result ofperceptions and is connected to the existential authenticity thatinformants have experienced in Christmas markets (Wang, 1999).

The two dimensions of authenticity (original and non-artificial)measured using the Camus scale (2010) are visible in the qualitativedata. The participants may evaluate themarket’s authenticity basedon the authenticity of the products sold at the market because thisis an easy way to state authenticity; they do not need to address thecomplex nature of the SChM as a whole. Indeed, the SChM moregenerally could be understood as a recreation of German medievalChristmas markets from the XIVth century (and therefore as a copyof an original from the Middle Ages that nevertheless is locateda city whose architectural heritage includes cathedrals). Similarly, itcould be argued that the SChM is staging a myth (Santa Claus), andhence is not relying on any material reality; this would make itessentially artificial (or hyperreal) (Hertrich et al., 2010).

5.2. Authenticity explains loyalty to the event

Authenticity has two roles. First, authenticity has an impact onloyalty through originality. Whether visitors return from year toyear only depends on the conformity of the market with its origins.When visitors feel that the SChM is faithful to its roots or to thetraditions of the original Christmasmarkets, they tend to be loyal tothe event. When modeled, the impact of originality dimension ofauthenticity can be measured. If the SChM is perceived as loyal toits origins, visitors are motivated to return more regularly. Loyaltyto the event depends on the event’s loyalty to the past.

Table 9Authenticity monetary value.

Visitfrequency

Recency Visit/year

Value/year (28 V

per visit)

Average/visitor 1.5 Visits/year

1.4 Years 1.07 30 V

One-point decreasein perceived originality

1.42 (�5.5%) 1.7 Years(þ0.3 year)

0.834 23.35 V

Difference/visitor �6.65 V

One-point increasein perceived artificialty

1.41 (�5.8%) 1.4 Years 1 28 V

Difference/visitor �2 V

Cumulative effects of one-point variation in bothdimensions

1.34 (�11%) 1.7 Year(þ0.3 year)

0.785 22 V

Difference/visitor �8 V

Secondly, authenticity has an impact on visit frequency throughboth artificiality (or lack thereof) and originality. Each dimension ofauthenticity has an equivalent weight in determining visitfrequency. Recency (i.e., the history of the tourist’s relationship tothe site) indicates perceived originality. Only artificiality must betested directly; the combination between tourist history (pastvisits) and feelings about artificiality enables to assess the siteauthenticity.

5.3. The value of authenticity

Authenticity has a monetary value. One potential explanationfor this value is that tourists are more educated than the averageindividual and are therefore sensitive to the concept of authen-ticity (Hall, 2007). As a proxy for educational level, the proportionof high SES is indeed very strong (67% for the visitors) comparedwith the national rate (26%; 2010 French census). In general,these results show that authenticity is not just a concern pro-jected by the management at tourism companies or byresearchers (Hall, 2007); rather, authenticity is an operationalconcept with clear and quantifiable consequences. For the SChM,a one-point variation in both dimension represents an 8 V or 27%difference in the amount spent per year. These findings indicatethe importance of maintaining or restoring the authenticity oftourist sites and events. Of course, this value may changedepending on the sites and events in question. However, it isclear that authenticity is not only a question of positioning; it isalso a more global concern for tourist attractions and an ante-cedent of tourist behavior.

6. Conclusion

6.1. Managerial implications

The journalist who suggested that the authenticity of theStrasbourg Christmas Market might affect visitor behavior was infact right. In managerial terms, tourist history appears to be a goodindicator of perceived authenticity.

Using the Camus (2010) scale, we showed how its two maindimensions play a role in value construction. We have alsoquantified the roles of these dimensions. We have therebydemonstrated the operationalization potential and validity of thisscale.

If the site is perceived as loyal to its origins, there should bemore visits in a multi-year period. The quest for authenticity mustbe deepened to improve tourist loyalty and consumption.Authenticity must be fostered for its own sake but also to improvemarketing, as it will increase loyalty and purchase frequency duringthe event. Market organizers would be well advised to keep onreinforcing authenticity cues at various levels.

Let us consider SChM as a built environment made of fixed,semi-fixed and non-fixed elements (Andriotis, 2011) citingRapoport (1984). In the case of SChM, the fixed elements (“humanmade such as buildings, but rarely or slowly change”) (Andriotis, 2011,p. 2), are enjoying an undisputable objective authenticity, with itsalready mentioned medieval cathedral and rich architecturalheritage. Not much has to be done about the fixed elements ofSchM except marketing them better, so that they become cues thatvisitors use to assess the authenticity of SChM. The authenticsettings of SchM are potentially a rich positioning axis, that providea serious sustainable competitive advantage, compared with otherChristmas markets that recently emerged almost everywhere inFrance.

The semi-fixed elements are composed of “furniture, utensils [.]that can be changed fairly quickly and easily.” (Andriotis, 2011, p. 2).

Communalities Initial Extraction

The StrasbourgChristmas Market isnot an imitation

1.000 0.727

Had the essential natureof Christmasmarkets been respected,the SChM would havebeen different

1.000 0.518

The SChM includesartificial elements

1.000 0.698

The SChM is a productof techniques and/ormaterials that are notall original

1.000 0.580

The SChM is the original,not a copy

1.000 0.780

The Strasbourg ChristmasMarket is the originalChristmas Market

1.000 0.581

Extraction method: principal component analysis.

H. Castéran, C. Roederer / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 153e163 161

In the case of SChM, the semi-fixed elements consist of the woodenchalets and their commercial offers, plus the lightings andChristmas decoration in Strasbourg streets. Here a lot can be done,for multiplying authentic cues for visitors to capture: making suredecoration and chalets are made of materials that are perceived asauthentic (wood), limiting the commercial offer to products thatboast authentic characteristics: handmade, made in, made by anda clear link to Christmas.

Finally, the non-fixed elements are “composed of the humanoccupants or inhabitants of the setting which can be influenced inline with the societal values and activities and uses of a site”, theseare obviously elements that are difficult to control. Do the crowdsof visitors create authenticity or destroy it? This is difficult toassess. But the offer of cultural activities (concerts, exhibitions,even activities for children) during December, that alreadyexist, could be better marketed to convey the message that SChMis not only about consuming, but also living a genuine culturalexperience at Christmas time, both for tourists and Strasbourginhabitants.

Andriotis (2011) citing Waitt (2000) further highlights the typesof cues that, tourists are looking for to assess authenticity: artefacts(clothes, tools, places of work), mentefacts (art, dance, religion,stories), and sociofacts (meeting and reminiscing with locals). Byselecting craftmen to sell on the market and staging their craft,market organizers provide potential cues of authenticity that areartefacts. By sticking to the spirit of Christmas (its values and reli-gious dimension) instead of diluting it in a merchant syncretism(Hertrich et al., 2010), market organizers can find sources of cues ofauthenticity related to mentefacts, finally by fostering meetingsbetween tourists and locals they can develop cues of authenticitythat are sociofacts.

6.2. Theoretical implications

In academic circles, the role and importance of authenticity intourism are well known (e.g., MacCannell, 1973), but the unstablenature of the concept and the lack of empirical studies showing itsimpact have also been pinpointed (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006).However, as far as we know, this is the first quantitative evidenceof the impact of authenticity on visits. Previous studies of behav-ioral intention in this context do exist (for example, Chi & Qu,2008; Gallarza & Gil Saura, 2006; Kolar & Zabkar, 2010), butthey do not discuss observed behavior or use authenticity valuemeasures. In our study, we adopted a constructivist perspective ofauthenticity, linking an existing declarative tool, namely Camus’scale (2010) devised to assess the authenticity of tourist sites, tothe perceptual process that Grayson and Martinec (2004) hadclarified. We are aware of the dual nature of SChM, which is botha tourist site and a merchant environment. Our results show thatthe authenticity can be assessed for a merchant object and fora tourist site. Our study has therefore expanded the use of Camus(2010)’s scale.

Our data, combined with secondary data, make it possible toderive the monetary value of authenticity. In addition to its otherpositive effects, authenticity represents a financial asset for sites. Itmust be managed very carefully. Classical financial and marketingtools (e.g., ROI, impact on lifetime value and customer equity) canbe used to influence authenticity. Taking into account these toolsand measuring their performance in a tourist context will beimportant in the future.

Both components of authenticity, originality and artificiality,have a specific role. They are linked with object-based authenticityand with existential loyalty. These are two independent consider-ations that are clearly taken into account by customers for differentpurposes (and impact loyalty and transaction value).

6.3. Limitations and future research ways

Our work has four main limitations.First, it could be interesting to add two sets of variables to

represent the amount spent by different categories of visitors andmotivations for their visits. To assess the value of authenticity andconfirm the secondary data, the amount of the average purchase orthe total amount spent must be determined. This would permita closer understanding of the consequences of authenticity.

The second limitation has to do with the treatment of visitmotivations in this study. They are not described, nor its groupcomposition: the size or nature of the groups (e.g., whether theyinclude family members or friends). Those variables may moderatethe importance of authenticity due to the link between expecta-tions and motivation (Gnoth, 1997) and the link between perceivedauthenticity and motivation (Kolar & Zabkar, 2010).

The third limitation has to do with the sample. The question-naires were administrated via the Internet, as this approach makesit possible to survey both visitors and non-visitors, which is ofspecial interest when the aim is to determine the factors influ-encing visits. However, such a survey must be complemented witha face-to-face visitor survey for researchers to obtain a representa-tive sample of visitors.

The replication of our work at other sites is crucial to furthervalidate our results. It could be of particular interest to distinguishbetween sites where special events take place (events such as theSChM) and other “permanent” tourist sites.

The last limitation is the lack of segmentation, due to the factthat we consider the whole sample. A two-way approach shows nosignificant links between socio-demographic characteristics andperceived authenticity. However, a study including a larger samplemight deploy a segmented approach to obtain more detailedinformation regarding the link between authenticity and behavior.

Finally, future research might address the holistic experience ofvisiting the city of Strasbourg as opposed to the more limitedexperience of visiting the SChM. This would make it possible forresearchers to study existential authenticity (Wang, 1999).

Appendix

Confirmatory PCA to validate the two dimensions of the scale

We just give the main results of the confirmatory analysis.

Total variance explained.

Component Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared loadings

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 2.541 42.351 42.351 2.541 42.351 42.351 2.106 35.106 35.1062 1.342 22.370 64.721 1.342 22.370 64.721 1.777 29.615 64.7213 0.711 11.842 76.5634 0.569 9.488 86.0515 0.500 8.337 94.3886 0.337 5.612 100.000

Extraction method: principal component analysis.

Rotated component matrix.a

Component

1 2

The Strasbourg Christmas Market is not animitation

0.852 0.004

Had the essential nature of Christmas marketsbeen respected. The SChM would have beendifferent

�0.313 0.648

The SChM includes artificial elements �0.103 0.829The SChM is a product of techniques and/

or materials that are not all original0.008 0.762

The SChM is the original. Not a copy 0.875 �0.115The Strasbourg Christmas Market is the

original Christmas Market0.710 �0.276

Extraction method: principal component analysis.Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization.

a Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

H. Castéran, C. Roederer / Tourism Management 36 (2013) 153e163162

The Poisson model

The global formulation of the Poisson model is as follows, with yas the visit frequency:

PðY ¼ yÞ ¼ ðltÞyy!

e�lt

This formulation indicates the probability that a given indi-vidual will visit y times.

The variables used in the regression

Mean Median Std.deviation

Minimum Maximum

2010 Visit frequency 1.52 1.00 1.27 0 4The Strasbourg Christmas

Market (SChM) is notan imitation

5.21 6.00 1.61 1 7

Had the essential natureof Christmas marketsbeen respected. TheSChM would havebeen different

4.71 5.00 1.74 1 7

The SChM includesartificial elements

5.75 6.00 1.34 1 7

The SChM is a product oftechniques and/ormaterials that are notall original

5.12 5.00 1.50 1 7

The SChM is the original.Not a copy

5.28 6.00 1.55 1 7

The Strasbourg ChristmasMarket is the originalChristmas market

4.19 4.00 1.90 1 7

Age 34.76 32.00 12.83 18 80Sex (0: female. 1: male) 0.49 0.00 0.50 0 1# of Years since the

last visit16.30 13.00 14.18 0 62

# of Years since thefirst visit

1.42 0.00 3.68 0 43

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, inthe online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.11.012.

References

Alsace Region. (2009). Noël 2008. Last viewed the 23.06.11 at. http://www.clicalsace.com/bilan-d-activite,638/impact-des-manifestations-de-l-avent-en-alsace-2008,728.html.

Andriotis, K. (2011). Genres of heritage authenticity: denotations from a pilgrimagelandscape. Annals of Tourism Research . http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.001.

Author, C. (2008). L’expérience de consommation, exploration conceptuelle, méthod-ologique et stratégique. Thèse de doctorat en sciences de gestion, IAE Dijon,Université de Bourgogne.

Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. J. (2010). The quest of authenticity in consumption:consumers’ purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes.Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 838e856.

Boorstin, D. (1964). The image, a guide to pseudo-events in America. New York:Harper.

Brown, S., Sherry, J. F., Jr., & Kozinets, R. V. (2003). Teaching old brands new tricks:retro branding and the revival of brand meaning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3),19e33.

Camus, S. (2004). Proposition d’échelle de mesure de l’authenticité perçue d’unproduit alimentaire. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 19(4), 39e63.

Camus, S. (2010). L’authenticité d’un site touristique, ses antécédents et ses influ-ences sur le touriste. Gestion 2000, 27(1), 101e117.

Chalmers, T. D., & Price, L. L. (2009). Does authenticity matter? The importance andinterplay of authenticity and inauthenticity. Advances in Consumer Research e

North American Conference Proceedings, 36, 72e75.Chhabra, D. (2010). Back to the past: a sub-segment of generation Y’s perceptions of

authenticity. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(6), 793e809.Chi, C. G.-Q., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination

image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: an integrated approach.Tourism Management, 29(4), 624e636.

Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology, 13, 179e201.Dovey. (1985). The quest for authenticity and the replication of environmental

meaning. In D. Seamon, & R. Mugerauer (Eds.), Dwelling, place and environment:Towards a phenomenology of person and word (pp. 33e50). Dordrecht: MartinusNijhoff Publishers.

Eco, U. (1986). Travels in hyperreality. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Ehrenberg, A. S. C., Goodhardt, G. J., & Barwise, T. P. (1990). Double jeopardy

revisited. Journal of Marketing, 54(July), 82e91.Fader, P., & Schmittlein, D. (1993). Excess behavioural loyalty for high-share brands:

deviations from the Dirichlet model for repeat purchasing. Journal of MarketingResearch, 30(November), 478e493.

Gallarza, M. G., & Gil Saura, I. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfac-tion and loyalty: an investigation of university students’ travel behaviour.Tourism Management, 27(3), 437e452.

Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: definition, evolution and research. TourismManagement, 29(3), 403e428.

Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J. (2007). What consumers really want: Authenticity. Boston,MA: Harvard Business Press.

Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of TourismResearch, 24(2), 283e304.

Gottdiener, M. (1997). The theming of America: Dreams, visions, and commercialspaces. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and index-icality and their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journalof Consumer Research, 31(2), 296e312.

Hall, C. M. (2007). Response to Yeoman et al: the fakery of ‘the authentic tourist’.Tourism Management, 28(4), 1139e1140.

Hertrich, S., Author, C., & Badot, O. (2010), Comment un produit “hyperréel”regagne-t-il un statut “d’authenticité”? Le cas du marché de Noël de Strasbourg.Actes des 15ème Journées de Recherche en Marketing de Bourgogne. Dijon.

Hughes, G. (1995). Authenticity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 22, 781e803.

H. Castéran, C. Roederer / Tourism M

Kolar, T., & Zabkar, V. (2010). A consumer-based model of authenticity: anoxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tourism Manage-ment, 31(5), 652e664.

Lau, R. W. (2010). Revisiting authenticity: a social realist approach. Annals of TourismResearch, 37(2), 478e498.

MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in touristsettings. The American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589e603.

MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. New York:Schocken.

Peterson, R. A. (2005). In search of authenticity. Journal of Management Studies,42(5), 1083e1098.

Pretes, M. (1995). Postmodern tourism: the Santa Claus industry. Annals of TourismResearch, 22(1), 1e15.

Rapoport, A. (1984). The meaning of the built environment: A non-verbal communi-cation approach. London: Chapman and Hall.

R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statisticalcomputing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL. http://www.R-project.org.

Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. J. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals ofTourism Research, 33(1), 65e86.

Rickly-Boyd, J. (2012). Authenticity and aura. A Benjamin approach to tourism.Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 269e289.

Taylor, J. (2001). Authenticity and sincerity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,28, 7e26.

Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze. London: Sage.Waitt, G. (2000). Consuming heritage: perceived historical authenticity. Annals of

Tourism Research, 27, 835e862.Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in the tourist experience. Annals of

Tourism Research, 26, 349e370.

Dr Herbert Castéran is an Associate Professor at EM-Strasbourg Business School (Strasbourg University, France).He teaches Marketing Research, Quantitative Methods andMarketing Metrics. He has a PhD in Management Sciences(Toulouse Capitole University). His main research interestsare tourism marketing, consumer lifetime value/customerequity and relevant topics.He is the founder and the CEO ofhis own marketing research company.

anagement 36 (2013) 153e163 163

Dr Claire Roederer is an Associate Professor at EM-Strasbourg Business School (Université de Strasbourg-France). She teaches Principles of Marketing, StrategicMarketing and Consumer Behavior. She has a PhD inManagement Sciences (IAE de Dijon Université de Bour-gogne). Her main research interests are consumer behavior,experiential aspects of consumption, Retailing and Child &Teen Consumption. She is author/co-author of several casestudies and articles dealing with these issues.