Innovation and Competitiveness in the Territorial Brand of the Algarve: A Comparative Analysis of Its Social Media Communication and Web Content

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Lot of basic information about the locality, which is not required for research paper. You can add the link.
2. There are 3 objectives mentioned, but metrics are not indicated. The study could be enhanced by including follower growth, reach/impressions, or click-through rates if available.
3. sample consists of only 689 posts from the official Visit Algarve
Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube profiles, which is very minimum for research study? Mention whether the sample size is sufficient or if data saturation was achieved.
4. The NVivo coding yielded rich semantic categories, but illustrative quotes or post samples are missing.
5.The result that only 0.6% of posts were on YouTube is interesting. Offer possible explanations (e.g., production costs, target audience mismatch) and recommendations for future use.
6. Clarify how the 38 documents were selected. Were they all available on the website? What was the inclusion/exclusion criterion?
7. Provide a clearer explanation of how sentiment was assigned. Did the software use keywords? Was there manual validation?
8.Explain the rationale for excluding platforms like TikTok or Twitter (beyond their absence on the official site). Was this a limitation of the research or a branding decision by the DMO?

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the constructive comments provided by Reviewer 1. We have revised and improved the manuscript with each of the suggestions, as detailed below:

1. Basic information about the destination: Contextual content in Section 1.1 has been reduced, and a link to the official Visit Algarve website has been included to offer complementary information without overloading the text.
2. Incorporation of digital metrics: Basic metrics on the number of followers and average engagement for the analyzed platforms have been added based on data from the tool Fanpage Karma.
3. Justification of sample size: A methodological explanation has been added, clarifying that the 689 posts represent the entirety of the content available during 2024 on the official platforms, thus ensuring theoretical saturation.
4. Illustrative examples of NVivo analysis: In the engagement results section, concrete examples of coded posts with high levels of interaction have been included to illustrate the analytical process and semantic findings.
5. Limited use of YouTube: A brief interpretative analysis has been introduced, offering possible reasons for the low usage of this platform and suggesting practical recommendations for its future utilization.
6. Selection of documents for web content analysis: The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the 38 analyzed documents have been specified, indicating that they were selected from the official website based on their narrative content.
7. Sentiment assignment: The functioning of NVivo's sentiment analysis system has been explained, and a note on the manual validation of a corpus sample has been added.
8. Exclusion of TikTok and Twitter: The methodological justification has been expanded to explain that these platforms were not included due to the absence of official profiles, which is acknowledged as a study limitation.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

* The introduction section does not adequately address why the study was conducted, which specific gaps in the literature it aims to fill, or what makes the study original and significant. While the section extensively discusses concepts such as branding and the effects of social media, it lacks a clear articulation of the research focus and its intended contribution to the existing body of knowledge. 

* The selection of the Algarve region as the research setting and the detailed explanation provided are commendable, as they enhance the contextual richness of the study. Similarly, the articulation of the research objectives and sub-objectives is clear and provides a structured roadmap for the investigation.

*The section titled "Place Branding" remains largely theoretical and would benefit significantly from being supported with empirical findings from tourism-focused studies. It is recommended that this section be revised to incorporate relevant literature that specifically addresses place branding within the context of tourism.

* Lines 209–249: This part of the paper deviates from scientific writing standards and lacks proper referencing. The arguments presented appear anecdotal and are not supported by any citations. This section should be thoroughly revised and grounded in relevant academic literature to enhance its credibility.

* Line 297 – Fanpage Karma Tool: The paper mentions the use of the Fanpage Karma tool for data collection but provides no information about its features, functionality, or precedent in academic research. To strengthen the methodological rigor, the authors should briefly describe the tool and cite prior studies (if any) that have employed it for similar purposes.

* Qualitative Data Analysis: The paper does not provide sufficient detail regarding the validity, reliability, and trustworthiness of the qualitative findings. It is essential to explain what measures were taken to ensure the credibility of the data analysis process. Similarly, the steps involved in data analysis should be described in a transparent and systematic manner.

* The conclusions of the study lack clear theoretical and practical implications. The authors are encouraged to elaborate on how the findings contribute to existing theory and what practical insights they offer for practitioners, policymakers, or destination managers.

Author Response

We appreciate the suggestions made by Reviewer 2, which have been instrumental in strengthening both the theoretical framework and methodological rigour of the manuscript. The following changes were made:

1. Clarification of the study's purpose and originality: The closing of the introduction has been reformulated to explicitly state the theoretical gap addressed, the originality of the methodological approach (triangulation between website, social media, and documents), and the contribution to the field of territorial branding in tourism.
2. Strengthening the theoretical framework with empirical tourism literature: Section 2.1 has been enriched with specific references to applied studies in tourism and place branding in real-world contexts, especially in Mediterranean destinations.
3. Revision of lines 209–249: This section has been rewritten to adopt a more academic tone, and relevant citations have been added to contextualize the tourism development of the Algarve from a documented perspective.
4. Description of Fanpage Karma: A technical description of the tool has been included, along with references to previous studies that have used it for academic purposes.
5. Reliability and validity of the qualitative analysis: A paragraph has been added to the methodological section explaining the process of double coding, cross-validation, and peer review to strengthen the reliability of the NVivo-based analysis.
6. Conclusions with theoretical and practical implications: The final section has been expanded to identify the study's theoretical contributions and propose practical recommendations for destination managers and institutional communication professionals.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article tackles the timely topic of the role of social media in territorial branding. The authors conducted an interesting comparative analysis, focusing on innovative forms of communication and strategies to strengthen the competitiveness of regions and cities in the digital space.

One of the main strengths of the text is its interdisciplinarity, that is, the combination of approaches from territorial marketing, digital communication and Internet data analysis. The authors demonstrate a good knowledge of the literature on the subject and skillfully set their research in the context of previous scientific work. The methodology - the use of analytical tools to study content published on social media (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) is also particularly commendable .

Despite its numerous merits, a few shortcomings can also be pointed out. The article could have expanded more on the section on the reception of content by users - the current analysis focuses mainly on the senders of the message. There was also a lack of a broader discussion of cultural aspects that may affect communication in different regions. The article failed to note the formulated research limitations and directions for future research that should be undertaken.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 3 for the valuable insights and for acknowledging this study's interdisciplinary and methodological approach. We have also made improvements in the areas highlighted:

1. User reception of content: A complementary qualitative analysis has been added that highlights comments and reactions to the most successful posts to indicate active user participation and message appropriation.
2. Consideration of cultural aspects: The discussion section reflects on cultural elements such as hospitality, landscape identity, and tradition in shaping the Algarve's brand narrative.
3. Limitations and future research directions: A final paragraph has been added to the conclusions to acknowledge the study's limitations and propose new lines of research, such as a comparison with user-generated content (UGC) and the inclusion of other emerging digital platforms.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

can be accepted

Author Response

 Dear revisor, we sincerely appreciate your contributions, which have undoubtedly enhanced the quality and depth of our research.

 

Best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for thoroughly addressing the review comments. The revisions have strengthened the manuscript in terms of theoretical foundation, methodological rigor, and practical relevance. I appreciate your efforts and wish you success with your publication.
Best regards,

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback and encouraging words. We are truly grateful for the time and care you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in helping us improve the theoretical foundation, methodological approach, and practical implications of our work.
We sincerely appreciate your support and best wishes for the publication process.

Regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please expand directions for future research

Author Response

Comment: Please expand directions for future research.
Response: Thank you very much for your review. A specific paragraph has been added addressing the implications and future lines of research related to this paper.