Sei sulla pagina 1di 23

INTRODUCTION

The Importance of Stakeholder Relations & Communication Tactics to the


Practice of City Branding

Chapter 2: Literature Review

1
INTRODUCTION

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This literature review acknowledges relevant and existing place, city, nation and destination
branding literature from different academic view points, in order to focus on the recent
development of city branding. The focus has been narrowed down to concentrate on the local
stakeholders within city branding and the role communications plays as a relationship
management tool between the city brand and its local stakeholders. See figure 2.1 for further
details.

2.1 City Branding: An Introduction


Throughout recent years, it is evident from increased academic literature, blogs, online
presence, interviews, conferences and practice that there has been greater emphasis placed
on the relatively new phenomenon of place branding; under which sits city, destination,
nation and regional branding. This literature review focuses on city branding, but applies
research and theory from other domains in order to take an original approach within the
subject.

The concepts surrounding branding places as a whole was introduced by Simon Anholt’s
(2007/2005) work on nation branding. This has now been developed into the current ‘hot
topic’ by many academics, known as city branding. Although place branding is considered a
new topic, it is not a new practice, it has been happening for many years under the term
“place promotion” (Gold & Ward, 1994). The way branding is now practiced and the
“conscious application of marketing approaches” (Kavaratzis, 2008) has produced a new point
of interest for academics and practitioners alike (Kavaratzis, 2008; Trueman, 2006 &
Hankinson, 2005).
INTRODUCTION

The founding father of the nation branding concept, Simon Anholt (2007), clearly identifies
that the increased attention on branding places, countries and more recently cities is due to
increased pressures to compete in the global market. Recent developments within new
media, increasing online presence and globalisation of markets, (Papadopoulos, 2004) have
also resulted in branding and image taking centre stage in the fight against increased
competition. The creation of city brands is therefore seen as a way of achieving business,
inward investment, residents, talent and tourists as suggested by city branding academic
Kotler (1999). These interests have directly resulted in increased academic writings on this
new subject. Alongside this academics and practitioners have been encouraged to work on
developing a successful process, or theory, for branding a city. Practitioners today argue that
a city can achieve more if they create brands which in the long-term can change perceptions
of that particular city and result in higher inward-investment, businesses, residents, students
and tourists.

This practice, as mentioned above, is carried out by mostly government funded organisations.
There has been an increase in these organisations over the last few years due to the attention
placed on city branding. Typically, they tend to manage aspects of city branding for
investment, businesses and policies whilst ‘destination management organisations’ (DMO’s)
deal with the tourist aspect of a place or city. The branding of cities and of destinations are
relatively overlapping fields; a city can be a tourist destination and therefore comes under the
umbrella brand of a place. City branding, however, is much more complex than destination
branding because there are usually more strategic issues involved (Teemu & Rainisto. 2009).

2.2 City Branding: Development


City branding is complex in academic literature as well as practice. Literature in the branding
field defines branding as “a customer experience represented by a collection of images and
ideas and it refers to a symbol such as a name, logo, slogan, and design scheme” alongside
“something that is owned by buyers and other stakeholders” (American Marketing
INTRODUCTION

Association, 2009). This literature forms the backbone of branding and is important because a
brand must be easily associated with by its stakeholders, those visiting and living in a city. It
must also be visually reflective of the city and the people whilst allowing the right experience
for external audiences. A brand “is a transforming idea that converts the tangible into
something of value” (Ind, 2003: 3), thus explaining how a brand is a vision more than a static
component and must mean something to those it effects.

Within considering city branding, techniques of brand management (promotion, positioning


and reputation management); or otherwise known as corporate branding have been
established and expanded upon in an attempt to suit the practice. These theories have been
developed by companies and organisations into branding strategies to both brand themselves
and the people behind the brand (Kavaratzis, 2008). Consequently from these ideas, nations,
destinations and cities have adapted to traditional and corporate branding techniques,
practices and developments (Kavaratzis 2004; Trueman et al 2004) to use in their own
practice in order to compete with other places (Gelder & Allan, 2006). A recent influx of
academic literature has occurred on the topic of corporate branding and how its basic
elements can be altered for city branding. Academics have researched these links in recent
literature (Kavaratzis, 2008), for example the process of corporate branding is described as
“the visual, verbal and behavioural attitude of a business model” (Knox and Bickerton, 2003,
cited in Kavaratzis, 2007) initiated through communication, culture, missions, values and
overall design (Simoes and Dibb, 2001 cited in Kavaratzis, 2008). Hulberg (2006), a corporate
brand academic, summarises the reasons for increased interest in corporate branding, one of
which is the current need for organisations to be transparent. As in today’s world, the
external audience demands and commands access to information and those behind the brand
(cited in Kavaratzis, 2008: 27), meaning increased importance is placed on this theory today.
These key points are relevant to city branding as they show an active brand ideology, a
feature which a city should include. It also demonstrates how the city should be viewed as an
organisation, a living and breathing thing, the opposite of a product or corporate brand.
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION

2.3 City Branding: Current Problems


The transfer of branding and promoting activity to a city or place, however, shows that “the
operational environment of cities proves a cause of difficulties and misalignments, mostly due
to the peculiar nature of places in general and cities in particular as marketable assets”
(Kavaratzis, 2004). In later literature Kavaratzis (2008) highlights the work of Virgo and
Chernatony’s (2006), recent study of Birmingham, where it was noted how city branding is
more complex than corporate branding, notably arising from the “diversity of stakeholders,
the number of organisations steering the brand, the limited control brand steerers have over
their products and the diverse target groups” (Kavaratzis, 2008: 29). Demonstrating the
increased challenges affecting city branding than corporate branding; academics argue that
branding cities means the people behind it usually have “no direct control over the products
they represent, nor the packaged offerings of intermediaries…” (Grovers & Go, 2009; Pike,
2008 and Hankinson, 2005); as these are too vast in scale and offering. This issue also relates
to the nature of corporate branding, which cannot be applied to people living in the cities.
The practice of branding a city is now regarded as much more complex than it originally
seemed, leaving branding organisations with many surrounding issues (Anholt, 2007).

Developing alongside Kavaratzis (2004) work, Dinnie (2004) a branding expert, argues that a
destination brand must encompass much more than that of a corporate or product brand and
it needs to involved more than just marketing techniques to achieve its goals. City brands
therefore need to include history, sociology, natural identity and politics of a place in order to
succeed. Although Dinnie (2004) focuses on one of the most widely discussed topics of
‘destinations’, his approach can be applied to city branding as cities can be destinations. In
relation to city branding the literature highlights the importance of including the culture
within a brand. From this, it could be argued that consideration of the inhabitants and
relevant local stakeholders is extremely important. This claim is supported by Anholt’s (2009)
views; although his most recent literature (2009) looks at the issue from the alternative angle
that “branding is the problem, not the solution”. Anholt (2009) therefore suggests that city
INTRODUCTION

branding should not be done in the same way as branding tangible assets. With this in mind, it
can be questioned whether you can brand people in the same manner as organisations.

Leading on from the above; the need for cities to compete in the globalised world brought a
new shift of marketing and branding to the public sector. This new practice is widely
misunderstood by many, which together with a limited understanding of the “nature of
places” by practitioners (Kavaratzis, 2004) explains why the subject is causing such debate.
These problems are highlighted in the implementation of city brands; skills have been
transferred from traditional branding techniques, resulting in misunderstanding and lack of
knowledge of the process by those administrating the brands. This advancing the argument
that city brands are complex and cannot be viewed in the same light as corporate brands.

Acknowledging the above points, Anholt (2009) argues in his most recent literature on the
topic; that it is the terminology of ‘branding’ that is misunderstood when applied to cities,
nations and places. He explains that the term branding is misunderstood by most
governmental bodies and governments need to focus on helping “…the world understand the
real, complex, rich diverse nature of their people and landscapes, their history and heritage,
their products and their resources; to prevent them from becoming mere brands” (Anholt,
2009: 4). Anholt implies that understanding the existence and value of the people and
communities of a particular place or city is most important. This poses the question of
whether the work carried on promoting cities is in fact classed as branding. It also questions
whether this could be the reason for such uncertainty over the topic and why main
stakeholders have no direct role of involvement in city brands (Kavaratzis, 2008).

From this introduction into current literature on the topic, this dissertation research will focus
on city branding, not solely from the ‘tourist’ perspective which has been widely developed as
‘destinations branding’ by academics such as Morgan (2005) and Hankinson (2005), but also
from the perspective of recognising local stakeholders as a main group within the
development and implementation of a city brand. The stakeholder topic has been taken into
INTRODUCTION

account from the identified similarities between corporate branding and city branding from
Kavaratzis’s (2008) research, one being the local communities (a main stakeholder group) and
the importance they play in both branding activities (Kavaratzis, 2008). The researcher,
however, sees the local community stakeholder group to be more important within city
branding. This is a topic not widely covered in academic literature, therefore allowing an
examination of research to be taken from a range of aspects surrounding the branding
subject; which the researcher sees as relevant in defining the topic.

2.4 Stakeholder Importance in the Current World


The complexities for practitioners in dealing with stakeholders has been analysed in a study
conducted by Partridge et al (2005), leading to the development of The Stakeholder
Engagement Manual. This explains how effective stakeholder engagement creates value for
everyone involved. The manual explains that, in the 21st century, the environment is more
unpredictable leaving business leaders with facing increased and new risks. In relation to city
branding, it suggests that businesses and organisation are expected to respond to global
issues affecting society, the environment and the economy. Stakeholder engagement and
relations is becoming a vital tool to understanding the complexities of these issues. With
relation to city branding, this is an important theory to have in mind, as the manner of city
branding will impact on the environment of that city.

There is substantial literature explaining the significance of all stakeholders in any corporate
organisation. This is particularly relevant when considering that stakeholders; “persons and
groups that affect, or are affected by, an organisation’s decisions” (Lawrence et al, 2005) can
also affect an organisation’s purpose and objectives (Freeman, 1984). This has a greater
impactful when the product, organisation or brand in question is uncontrollable (Pike, 2008).
In place branding, many branding academics such as Morgan, Pitchard and Pride (2005) argue
that those behind the brands development often lack control, funds, are vulnerable to
external and internal political pressures and, significantly have to consider the vast number
of stakeholders involved when dealing with these pressures. This emphasises why literature
INTRODUCTION

has developed on destination branding; because their stakeholder groups can be classed as
more manageable and the tourist audience can be more targeted. When it comes to city
branding, these groups and influences are much more complex ((Moilanen & Rainisto, 2009),
therefore harder to discuss, resulting in a lack of academic writings.

External to the branding field, Charkham (2005), an academic within corporate governance,
views stakeholders as two groups; those bound to contracts with the organisation called
‘contractual’; and those not contractually bound called ‘community’. The community group
is of particular interest to city branding, although they have no legal contract with the brand
they can still provide authority and ultimately demand action. In terms of theory, the
community can be viewed as “a group of people who live in the same locality” (Underwood &
Fray, 2008: 382). Corporate communications literature can be utilised to understand the
importance of different groups external to the brand and how they can effect the
development. Stakeholder mapping models can be used to develop effective communication
plans to best relate to these groups; as a tool of building relations. Stakeholder importance
can be mapped out in several different ways to identify their power verses their interest. This
helps to identify the groups that are most dangerous, dominant or dependant to the brand or
organisation (Cornelissen, 2008: 42, 55).

Charkham (1992) identified the community group as a main stakeholder, which in addition to
research from the branding academics (Ind. 2004), suggests that it is important for the brand
to include such groups into the brands development. Olins’s (1987) work on branding is
useful, even if the focus is from a product branding context, as his ideology can still be used
for determining appropriate brand campaigns for cities. It must not be taken on face value,
however, as the risks associated with city branding are much higher.

2.5 Stakeholders Importance to City Branding


INTRODUCTION

The importance of individuals and stakeholder groups to branding theory is cited by branding
academics, such as Nicholas Ind (2005). He expresses the importance of “intertwining of
individual talent and the values of the brand”, as this allows for a full participation of value
exchange; meaning that those external get involved. It opens up the “internal branding”
corporate structure which many governments and organisations get caught in and tend to
demand what the brand is, rather than let it evolve through the type of exchange process
mentioned above. Expanding on from this point, Nicholas Ind (2005) also states that
stakeholders need to “play equally in the evolution of the brand and are contributors to the
living theatre of the brands fulfilment through their simple caring about the value exchange
the brand represents.” This is important and can form the backbone to understanding brands
and how important the people the brand represents are to creating a successful vision.

Theory on issues surrounding branding cities and places has been discussed in further detail
by Grovers & Go’s (2009) as they highlight a “3-Gap Place Branding Model”, which attempts
to examine the potential gaps in place branding and identifies three issues which cause an
unsuccessful brand. The model highlights that gaps can occur if the hosts (inhabitants) of a
place or city have a different reading as the guests (tourists, business visitors, investors etc),
and therefore the implementation and delivery of the brand can be classed as “off-brand”,
resulting in disappointing results (Grovers & Go, 2009: 245). This issue poses questions that if
the local culture is not represented within the brand; can this “…cause unexpected tension
between the host-community and guests” (Grovers & Go, 2009: 71). Following on from this
statement; “the quality of the place experience is derived from the interfacing between host
and guest, the outcome of which can make or break the place brand image” (Grovers & Go,
2009). The model has been developed with destination branding in mind, however this
model can be relevant for city branding too; because making sure a city brands identity is
correct is important to portraying a true vision of that particular place, and a vision that
people want to support.
INTRODUCTION

Similar to Grovers and Go’s (2009) brand strategy gap, other academics in the place and
nation branding field argue that the ‘identity-image gap’ can occur when the true identity of a
place fails to be appreciated by those external to it (Dinnie, 2007). In support of this theory,
Wally Olins (1987), brand-guru articulates how brands should be developed not only with the
audience in mind, but the personality and identity too. Branding academics label the term
‘place identity’ which is constructed through historical, political, religious, cultural aspects,
key influencers and knowledge (Grovers and Go, 2009); therefore those key city stakeholder
groups. Significantly, this works to achieve a true city brand, one which represents the people
involved and gains their support. As mentioned in earlier literature, city brands are umbrella
brands for destinations, therefore the importance of visitor and local interaction in improving
overall perceptions.

In conjunction, the research conducted over the past twenty years (Van Riel’s, 1992) from a
scope of academic domains, states that successful branding requires “a strong network of
stakeholder relationships which all share a common vision of the brand” (Hankins (2003),
whilst recognising the urgent need to take into account the wide range of stakeholder groups
(Trueman’s (2004). A local study of twelve different English cities, “Hankinson, (2004) finds
that a community’s history, heritage and culture are important in brand projection” in terms
of the “residents city brand attitudes” (Merrilees et al, 2007). In particular, recent literature
also notes the host-community or local stakeholder groups (Pike, 2008) to be relevant in
successful branding and of keeping them aware of infrastructure developments. Therefore, in
terms of theory development on this issue, it is obvious that the problem is noted but the
academic literature has yet to fully explore this topic in further detail.

2.6 Important of Local Stakeholders: Communities


Current branding literature has highlighted a general gap in theory and practice and a need to
establish a model of “place branding and identity dynamics” with a focus on the engagement
of host-communities, as a main stakeholder group (Trueman, & Cornelius, 2006). It can be
INTRODUCTION

argued from the evidence mentioned above that city brands needs to encapsulate the host-
communities “sense of place” for the brand to reflect the true identity (Pike, 2008); whilst
having the chance to create a competitive brand vision which will work. Alongside this, other
academics in the field and in similar fields also identify a literature gap; stating that not
enough has been written on city branding organisation’s involvement with gaining local buy-
in and support (Pike, 2008; Papadopoulous, 2004) to achieve a brand the locals respect and
are involved in. The “local people” factor is highlighted in many academic writings, as this
variable strongly effects perceptions of a place and is a strong determining and differentiating
factor for a nation, destination or city (Freire, 2007). This relays the importance of
understanding a city is an over-head or ‘umbrella’ brand for destinations and incorporating
the two types of literature is essential. Branding practitioners must therefore begin to
understand that city brands must not be external to the place been branded or it can easily
fail.

Academics within the more widely researched destination branding field have identified the
citizens, or local people as the “inner force” of the city (Morgan et al, 2005). In this literature,
a relevant example is shown by Fiona Gilmore (2005); where research was conducted into the
city of Shanghai forcing an image of modernity. However, she noted that cities with this
ideology are looking to change people’s perceptions, but what is crucial are the inhabitants of
that city and their “sense of pride”. Shanghai worked on developing the brand with focus on
the citizens and produced the campaign “Better city, better life” (Morgan et al, 2005).
Literature of this context is limited; as city brands are being designed alongside corporate
brand ideology, meaning the community is an aspect which is missing. The majority of
corporate brands do not need to develop a brand based on intangible products;
strengthening the reason why this particular area needs more research for further
development in city branding literature.

When comparing the literature to practice, you could argue that it is easier to work with
stakeholders and the local community when you are a corporate brand rather than a city
INTRODUCTION

brand. Recent research conducted by Kavaratzis (2007) highlights the differences between
corporate and city brands. Essentially, the main points are their “complex and multi-
stakeholder character and their dependence on a wide cooperation that runs across a city or
organisation”, highlighting the complexity of shaping an overall city brand. This complex
variation and lack of historical development in the field obviously adds to demands of the
current practice.

Bringing the above points into present practice, Placebrands, an agency focused on
developing brand strategies, highlights in their “Placebrands City Branding Book” (Gelder &
Allan, 2006) and recent journals such as Gelder & Roberts (2009), state that developing city
brands is “a shared responsibility and practice of the city’s main stakeholders who include its
residents, its businesses large and small, and all too often forgotten, those who are frequent
visitors and have a good sense of how the place is perceived”. This highlights how
organisations are verifying the issue and difficulties that arise in building a city brand without
their local stakeholder support and input. Governments and branding organisations must
ensure the visions and aspirations of the brand are in line with the expectations and
requirements of the local community, therefore the need to start with an “inward focus” is
essential so brand promises are translated accordingly (Balakrishnan, 2009; Trueman et al,
2004; Pike, 2005). In practice this can be viewed as the cities local government. Therefore it’s
the responsibility of the local council to encourage city branding development with the local
stakeholders; but this is questionable if this practice works in reality.

From reviewing the research, it can be seen that current city branding literature generally
does not recognise and highlight the significance of the different stakeholder groups; their
relationship with the brand and the effect they can have to development (Fitchett, 2005;
Friedman and Miles, 2002; Virgo and de Chernatony, 2006 cited in Merrilees et al, 2007);
alongside ways to incorporate into practice. After a study of three European cities, Kavaratzis
(2008) explains the importance of the local community and how current cities are not
including their local stakeholders, in particular the residents into the work. It is stated that
INTRODUCTION

the “Future city marketing and city branding application needs to include local communities
in all steps of the marketing process to ensure representation of their interests and prevent
such criticism” (Kavaratzis, 2008: 145).

One of the latest literatures on the topic (Moilanen & Rainisto, 2009) has attempted to create
a structured plan for nations, cities and destinations to brand themselves and discusses the
surrounding “difficulties in controlling” city brands, but does not mention stakeholders
directly. Not much depth has been explored dealing with the importance stakeholders play
within city branding and how almost all brands fail due to reasons surrounding this issue,
alongside others. However, the case studies that Moilanen & Rainisto (2009) explored,
highlighted more predominantly where brands have tried to develop “without little discussion
with the citizens resulting in lack of support, which was additionally criticised in the media”.
This heightens the importance of how local brand ‘ambassadors’ must be firstly considered,
included and be comfortable with the brands development. The literature does critically
state that the amount of interest groups and their influence is a major issue to city branding;
therefore more exploration, practice investigation and theory development on this topic
needs to be conducted.

The role stakeholder relations play within the city branding process is of particular interest, as
this is a useful practice of gaining stakeholder support and respect. The tools which are
regularly used by organisations and corporate brands to develop this include planned
communications (van Riel, 1992); a combined topic which is very limited within city branding
literature.

2.7 The Complexity of Stakeholder Relations to City Branding


A new stage of stakeholder relations or engagement has been noted in stakeholder theory, as
Lawrence (2005) explains how organisation’s relationships have shifted from an inactive to a
INTRODUCTION

interactive stance in order to create “ongoing relationship of mutual respect, openness and
trust” (Lawrence, 2005:15).

The idea of including stakeholders into city branding techniques may sound simple, but as
many academics argue, “…despite the benefits of using city branding to attract visitors and
capital, limitations persist. Firstly, multiple identities and conflicting interests among
different stakeholders may contribute to a lack of unity of purpose and decision-making,
which are necessary to build strong brands” (Papadopoulous and Heslop, 2002; Csaba, 2005
cited in Merrilees et al, 2007). Issues within current practice alongside literature are also
apparent as Trueman et al (2004) identified in a research study how city brands are carrying
out conflicting messages to its many stakeholders, and how each of those stakeholders have
conflicting objectives; from local businesses, local residents and local media. This issue also
argues that “local policy and communications strategy indicates a real need for stakeholders
to become involved in developing the city; since involvement is the first step towards trust
and brand ownership” (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2001 cited in Trueman et al,
2004). However, marketing academics such as Balakrishnan (2009) acknowledge the need for
another brand strategy development approach, since cities are not products and cannot be
related to corporate brands. Notably, reasons differentiating this type of project from
corporate branding is that the “stakeholders are diverse and influential” and can have
extreme pressure on the work behind the brand and more recently that the “media is
becoming a more powerful constraint” (Balakrishnan. (2009), and also need to be considered
under the term of local stakeholders.

Alongside this point, another issue occurred as Trueman et al (2004) also researched how
misunderstanding of communication networks within certain communities can impact a city
brand by not achieving the adequate relations needed to develop. Trueman et al (2004)
suggests that before developing the brand an understanding of the host-community is
required. Highlighting again the importance of a true brand identity, otherwise conflicting
views can develop which can create a “brand strategy gap” (Grovers and Go .2009) as
INTRODUCTION

explained earlier. However, despite this theory on stakeholder engagement issues, recent
debates about city branding have highlighted that “stakeholder buy-in when developing city
brands, is the only way to gain long-term impact”; and the communication tactics involved in
this process are an appropriate method (Global City Forum, 2009 cited in Underwood & Fray,
2008). Therefore getting the planned communication right can have a significant effect on
your brand.

2.8 Communication as a Tool for Developing Local Stakeholder Relations


In order to achieve a successful city brand and gain stakeholder support, many
communications texts support the role communication plays in engaging stakeholder
relations and as a result creates a successful “mutually beneficial relationship” (Lamb &
McKee, 2005). City branding academics such as Kavartzis (2004) also stress the importance of
communication within city branding in order to assimilate the vision to all relevant
stakeholders (Balakrishnan, 2009). This particular research literature noted two forms; the
intentional communication from marketing, advertising, PR, logos, together with
unintentional communication which comes from a city’s actions, for example, government
organisations (Kavartzis (2004). Cities behaviour and actions come from those in charge; the
city’s governing structure where results can be seen in urban design, regeneration,
infrastructure projects, community development programmes and citizens participation
(Kavartzis, 2004). These two aspects of communication must interlink in order to work as a
brand strategy plan.

Communication theories by academics in the field see communications as a ‘two-way’


process of “building positive relationships between organisations and their publics” Tench
and Yeomans (2006). This is a function which can be implemented to the work of city
branding as intentional or planned communication practice. Further exploration into
communications and its involvement with communities has shown a link in the
Communications Year Book, which describes “…communication functioning as a tool to
INTRODUCTION

accomplish particular community goals, such as restoring community image” (Underwood &
Fray 2008: 378). Furthermore Lamb (2005) states that increased resources for community
activity will enhance local pride and quality of life

In terms of theory development, communications has a strong relation to brands. Schnitz,


one of the leading writers on corporate branding explains how branding is “cross-disciplinary,
and includes input from communication, marketing and other functional areas within the
organisation” to achieve success (Cornelissen, 2008: 86). Communication is argued to be the
most important aspect of a brand in Nicholas Ind (2005) work, even stating that too much
emphasis is placed on the strategies, whereas the important role should be focused within
communication of the brand. Alongside this, recent editions of PR Week (Sudhamon &
Magee, 2009) discuss place branding as a pressing topic by stating that “if there is a master
marketing discipline for countries then it is certainly PR”, therefore arguing that academics in
the field are noting the impact successful communications and PR tactics can have on
branding places. A reflection of this view in corporate communication theory describes the
significance the role communications plays in management. It helps to develop “shared
vision”, “maintaining trust” and to be “empowering and motivating” (Riel. 1992); techniques
which help incorporate stakeholders and gain buy-in from external and internal groups; as
discussed earlier in the literature to be important to city branding.

Communications research “have also revealed how people’s interpretations of a physical site
or group is constructed as a community via their communication practices” (Underwood &
Fray. 2008). Therefore, how a brand is communicated depends on how others perceive that
place and brand. Communications literature also relays the significance of “place
attachment”; “the emotional bonding of people and groups to places” and how this
“intensified people’s commitment to community and to the preservation of that community’s
culture.” (Underwood & Fray, 2008: 382). Recent planned communication theory is of
particular interest to this topic as it explains how using the community can help to get
messages to the audiences. Literature states that “opinion leaders from a group [community
INTRODUCTION

ambassadors] may serve as effective intermediaries in bridging the gap between planners and
receivers”, this can gain reinforcement through personal trust (Windahl et al, 2009). This
theory highlights how communicating with the community group is a complex process which
demands an understanding of this group in order to do so effectively and the use of
appropriate communications channels.

Evidence relating to this literature is shown in a recent project executed on Bradford by


Trueman et al (2004), which shows that perceptions can be enhanced and influenced by
clearer communications; the first steps towards “trust and brand ownership” (Delargo-
Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2001 cited in Trueman et al, 2004). Therefore communicating
in an interactive way as shown in earlier communication models by McQuail 1984, see figure
2.2 (Windahl, 2009: 62) is an engaging way to target audiences. Earlier theories demonstrate
the important role that “two-way symmetrical communication” plays in aiding the
communications practitioners in taking charge of engagement with stakeholders to gain trust
(Toth, 2007: 36). Solely providing information is now not adequate in today’s society, as the
receiver’s demand more from organisations. Further research (Freire, 2007) explored how
significant the “local people” were to the brand-building process and highlighted that a
place’s image is more often stereotyped by the “typical local people”; another argument to
support more interaction with the local community when developing a city brand. It must be
effectively communicated what cities are ‘doing’ and the efforts to gain community buy-in
and trust with their council and local and partnership organisations (Underwood & Fray,
2008), who are all involved in the brand development.

Many city branding academics argue, people need to know what the place is ‘doing’ in order
to be valued and the place needs to communicate its true “identity” (Trueman et al, 2004;
Pike, 2008) and vision, through planned communication and developed relations with its
audiences. In reflection of literature on this topic, it has been noticed that Hankinson (2003)
devised a conceptual model for place brands and placed importance on communication,
stakeholder relationships and networking. Further growth has seen Kavaratzis (2008)
INTRODUCTION

compose a structure to demonstrate the local communities and the role communication plays
to achieving the end result of the overall city brand vision. These are crucial parts of the
branding process. However, this model is basic in relation to the local stakeholders as this was
only one small aspect the thesis highlighted, therefore, city branding in this context needs
further research. In terms of the impact communications has on developing relations with
local stakeholders, the brand needs to understand the local pressure groups and those the
brand has an instant impact upon in order to develop a successful communications plan
involving interaction with local stakeholders to work towards brand success.

2. 9 City Branding Literature Conclusion


When developing city brands, selected audiences may be overlooked, as marketers and
branding practitioners may consider the main audiences to be those outside the place being
branded. However, arguments should be considered into why a city brand does not attempt
to get the locals on their side. Obviously in our democratic society you cannot gain ‘buy-in’ or
support from everyone, but the brand vision and its aims should consider the groups within
the local community and make efforts to include them and target them directly with
appropriate communication plans. This would help to create a more transparent and honest
brand; one which people would relate to and eventually achieve local pride in the city. This
will, as mentioned, also achieve a knock-on effect in promoting the city to external audiences
and therefore benefit the overall city brand.

With the importance of stakeholders in mind, it is evident that a more theorised model of
execution for city branding, or another appropriate name, needs to be developed in order to
achieve a higher success rate. Arguably, the brand needs to be interactive and a part of the
host-community to be successful. The evidence that more research needs to be carried out is
substantial, but not surprising since the topic is still relatively new. More written material
needs to be developed within city and place branding with the aspect of stakeholders,
particularly the host-community as the main focus point including ways in which to engage
INTRODUCTION

with them. The issues surrounding the communication of mixed messages need to be looked
into, and possibly an aspect for further research on a larger scale. However, for this
dissertation, the research will look at the role and involvement that the local stakeholders
play in developing and implementing city brands and how communication can help develop
and maintain community relationships in order increase chances for success.
INTRODUCTION

Figure 2.1 City Branding & Stakeholder Relations Model for Literature Purpose
INTRODUCTION

Figure 2.2 Communication Model

Sender
Active Passive

Active Exchange / Interaction Search

Receiver
Address / Dissemination Time-Filling
Passive
surveillance

Figure 2: Four types of communication pattern (McQuail, 1984)


Cited in Windahl, S. 2009: 62
INTRODUCTION

Potrebbero piacerti anche