Conference PaperPDF Available

Beyond the City Brand: A Co-ownership Model Structuring Internal Intentions and External Perceptions

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

In a globalizing word, cities are under pressure and have to face an increasing competition. Territories are considered as strategic places using public marketing and branding processes. Indeed, city brand strategy defined by internal stakeholders (i.e. managers) can improve attractiveness by affecting the representation of external stakeholders (i.e. residents, companies and visitors). In a broad evolutionary shift, we consider the city brand in a progressive approach, and the city brand co-ownership as a collaborative and participatory process. The gap identified in the literature refers to the differences and the matches between the city brand strategy and the city brand perceptions. Indeed, the research question of this paper is: how city brand strategy from internal stakeholders is linked with city brand perceptions from external stakeholders? We opted for an exploratory and qualitative research design with a multiple case study targeting three European metropolises: Amsterdam, Lyon, and Metz. Public reports (i.e. secondary data) and 200 answers from a French representative sample about the city brand perceptions (i.e. primary data) are analyzed with a thematic content analysis. We propose a dynamic city brand co-ownership model within the relationship between the city brand strategy and the city brand perceptions are moderated by structuring factors.
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Place Branding Conference 2018
1
Beyond the City Brand: A Co-ownership Model Structuring Internal Intentions and External
Perceptions
Christophe ALAUX*, Laura CARMOUZE**, Christine CUENCA***
Abstract
In a globalizing word, cities are under pressure and have to face an increasing competition. Territories
are considered as strategic places using public marketing and branding processes. Indeed, city brand
strategy defined by internal stakeholders (i.e. managers) can improve attractiveness by affecting the
representation of external stakeholders (i.e. residents, companies and visitors). In a broad evolutionary
shift, we consider the city brand in a progressive approach, and the city brand co-ownership as a
collaborative and participatory process. The gap identified in the literature refers to the differences and
the matches between the city brand strategy and the city brand perceptions. Indeed, the research question
of this paper is: how city brand strategy from internal stakeholders is linked with city brand perceptions
from external stakeholders?
We opted for an exploratory and qualitative research design with a multiple case study targeting three
European metropolises: Amsterdam, Lyon, and Metz. Public reports (i.e. secondary data) and 200
answers from a French representative sample about the city brand perceptions (i.e. primary data) are
analyzed with a thematic content analysis.
We propose a dynamic city brand co-ownership model within the relationship between the city brand
strategy and the city brand perceptions are moderated by structuring factors.
Key words: City Brand Strategy, Brand Management, Co-ownership, European metropolises
* PhD and senior lecturer
** PhD student and junior lecturer
*** PhD and study engineer
Introduction
“The local in its myriad of circumstances would be the new frontier of the fight against global change”
(Lussault, 2017: 277).
In a globalizing word, cities are under pressure and have to face an increasing competition (Serval, 2015,
2017). Territories are considered as strategic places using public marketing and branding processes.
Indeed, city branding can improve attractiveness by affecting the representation of external stakeholders
such as the residents, the companies and the visitors (Braun et al., 2013).
The interest of scholars in city branding continues to grow (Dinnie, 2011; Lucarelly and Berg, 2011;
Kavaratzis et al., 2015), and literature is calling our attention on the worrying situation of city brand
management. This is notably due to the creation of city brands rise (Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2013).
Moreover, Green et al. (2016) put into perspective a “broad evolutionary shift” in the literature on city
branding, understood as a change in philosophies and assumptions, and propose a progressive approach.
Consequently, we are focusing on the complex and uncontrollable characteristics of the city brand
(Trueman et al., 2007; Skinner, 2008; Zenker, 2011).
Due to the places’ specificities (Boisen, 2008), place brands are more complex than commercial brands
(Anholt, 2010), and refer to “a set of positive, neutral and negative associations” (Boisen et al., 2011:
140) that highly depend on specific contexts. In a cognitive and emotional approach, brand perceptions
can be individual, collective or shared, combined directly or indirectly (Adams, 2009). Moreover,
geographical representations of places are influencing brand perceptions. In order to create places’
representations and place brands, the role of public authorities is twofold (Boisen et al., 2011). On the
one hand, public managers select specific stakeholders they want to cooperate with, and on the other
hand, they prioritize some interests above others that the place brand will put into perspective. A set of
questions are emerging: how are the goals of a city brand defined by the public managers, understood
as the internal stakeholders? How do they choose the targets of a city brand? How is a city brand
perceived by the residents, the companies and the visitors, identified as the external stakeholders?
Prior literature has broadly studied the city brand co-ownership by stakeholders living in and/or knowing
the city (Hospers, 2010; Boisen et al., 2011; Sevin, 2011). However, there is very little research on the
International Place Branding Conference 2018
2
differences and the matches between the city brand strategy carried by public managers and the
perceptions of the residents, the companies and the visitors.
Anchored in a paradigm of reflexive modernity (Giddens, 1987; Beck, 2001), the structuration theory
(Giddens, 1994) promotes different types of reactions, which jeopardize or foster a social system. The
social system can refer to a city brand co-ownership process, and the different types of reactions can be
understood as factors influencing positively or negatively the process.
To fulfill this theoretical gap, the research question raised by this paper is: how city brand strategy from
internal stakeholders is linked with city brand perceptions from external stakeholders?
The theoretical goal of this article is to propose a city brand co-ownership model linking the goals and
values carried by the city brand strategy with a set of perceptions of the external stakeholder, influenced
by positive and negative factors. The managerial goal is to propose an analysis grid of the city brand co-
ownership so that public managers can better adapt their objectives, methods and promotion channels
according to their targets. To meet these goals, we opt for an empirical investigation based on a
qualitative methodology related to three well-known European city brands: I Amsterdam, Only Lyon
and Inspire Metz.
The article is structured as follow. The section 1 presents the theoretical background around three key
elements: the city branding strategy, the city brand co-ownership and the structuration theory to identify
factors influencing the city brand co-ownership process. The section 2 provides the methodological
framework that consists in collecting and analyzing data from public rapports dealing with city brand
strategies on the one hand, and a representative sample of 200 French respondents on the other hand.
The section 3 shed light on our findings which will be discussed in the final section.
1. Theoretical background
The goal of the following paragraphs is threefold: first, we provide a clear definition of city branding
putting into perspective the divergent trajectories of scholars (1.1). Secondly, following an assessment
perspective, we identify the key dimensions that encompass the city brand co-ownership process in a
cognitive and emotional approach (1.2). Finally, the theoretical background sheds light on factors that
can jeopardize or foster the city branding co-ownership (1.3).
1.1 A broad evolutionary shift to define city branding
Broadly defined, a city brand refers to “a set of positive, neutral and negative associations” (Boisen et
al., 2011: 140) that highly depend on specific contexts. Moreover, scholars often characterize city
brand as simple and preoccupied with logos and slogans” (Green et al., 2016). However, the public
brand in general and the city brand in particular, still struggle to be identified as “real” objects of
research (Rochette, 2016: 7), as evidenced by the lack of theoretical contributions on the subject.
The territory is not a brand by nature, and it becomes one when a marketing strategy is defined, coupled
with a brand effect on specific targets. Through an analysis of the literature on the city brand strategy,
Vuignier (2018) defines four elements structuring the city branding strategy: the recognized boundaries
of the territory (1), the necessary existence of territorial specific attributes (2) recognized by the external
stakeholders (3), and the entity carrying the city brand strategy (4), as shown in the Figure 1.
International Place Branding Conference 2018
3
Figure 1: Four elements defining a city brand strategy
Source: Figure adapted from Vuignier (2018: 15)
First of all, the territory has recognized boundaries, referring to political, legal, geographical and cultural
boundaries. More the boundaries are vague, more the message and so the city brand strategy will be
diffuse.
Then, the existence of specific attributes for the territory seems essential, because without attributes
there is any brand strategy (Kapferer, 2013). Nevertheless, can all territories be differentiated by specific
attributes?
The third elements refers to specific attributes, which must be recognized by the visitors, the residents,
and the other external stakeholders (i.e. the other public organizations, the companies and the third
sector). Prior literature (Braun et al., 2013; Meyronin, 2015) draws our attention to the fact that the
difficulty of the territory is not to have specific attributes, but rather that they are recognized by the
internal and external stakeholders.
The last element focuses highlights the fact that the existence and strength of a city brand depends on
the entity that defines and implements the city brand strategy (Kapferer, 1997; Wiedmann, 2014). While
for private organizations, the company is both the brand, for the city brand, it is usually an ad hoc entity
that carries the city brand strategy.
Due to these four elements, we decide to focus on the public organization that defines and implements
the city brand strategy on the one hand, and on the perceptions of the external stakeholders about this
strategy on the other hand. To do so, we opt for a “progressive approach” (Green et al., 2016) of city
branding, which first deals with city brand co-creation process by multiple stakeholders (i.e. the
residents, the visitors, the companies, etc.). Then, the progressive character refers to the complexity and
uncertainty of the city brand, which claims for a collaborative and participatory city brand management.
The progressive approach of city branding strategy sheds light on a specific contributing factor: the co-
ownership, understood as neither an individual process nor a process from the group belonging to the
city.
1.2 A cognitive and emotional approach of city branding co-ownership
Local governments and other stakeholders may use brands to appeal to different groups and evoke
different associations with them, but this is not easy” (Eshuis et al., 2013).
In a cognitive and emotional approach, brand perceptions can be individual, collective or shared,
combined directly or indirectly (Adams, 2009). Moreover, geographical representations of places are
influencing brand perceptions. In order to create places’ representations and place brands, the role of
public authorities is twofold (Boisen et al., 2011). Not only, public actors select specific stakeholders
they want to cooperate with, but also they prioritize some interests above others that the place brand will
put into perspective.
In the literature, many obstacles are discussed regarding the city brand process:
The multiple public and private stakeholders involved (i.e. tourists, residents, companies,
museum, etc.) (Green et al., 2016);
International Place Branding Conference 2018
4
The fragmentation and the lack of coordination related to the new policy field of city branding
(Kavaratzis, 2009);
The lack of a consistent political support (Braun, 2008);
The particular nature of places (i.e. the four elements exposed just above);
Due to the public interest, the need to satisfy the greatest number of stakeholders at the risk of
losing the meaning of a brand.
To clarify these obstacles, Eshuis et al. (2013) test three major hypothesis about the obstacles within the
administration (1), the obstacles relating to political issues (2), and the obstacles dealing with the content
of marketing campaigns (3). They conclude that “the classical marketing obstacles have a significant
negative effect on perceived results of place branding in terms of attracting target groups, whereas the
other two obstacles (political and administrative) do not have significant effects” (Eshuis et al., 2013).
Following the recommendations of Eshuis et al. (2013), we focus on the co-ownership process, and
therefore we determine the relationship between the city brand strategy (i.e. the goals and values
formulated by the internal stakeholders) and the perceptions of targeted groups (i.e. the external
stakeholders).
1.3 A structuration theory to identify factors influencing the city brand co-ownership
Giddens (1994) proposes a new sociological reading of modernity, showing that it is multidimensional
and animated by reflexivity (causes become consequences and vice versa). According to this circular
vision of the social world, the father of the structuration theory (1987) puts forward the notion of
structural duality. The structural dimensions of social systems - binding and enabling - are understood
both as the conditions and the results of the actions implemented by the actors. As city brand can be
considered as a management tool (Urde, 1994) socially constructed, a city brand can jeopardize or foster
the relationship between internal and external stakeholders.
Linked with the concept of reflexive modernity from Beck (2001), modernity is linked to particular
risks, which Giddens identifies through seven trends: the globalization of risk in intensity (1), the
globalization of risk in the increase in the number of contingent events affecting the inhabitants of the
planet (2), the risk arising from the created environment (3), the development of institutionalized risk
environments (4), the awareness of risk as risk (5), the spread of risk awareness (6), and awareness of
the limits of competence (7). How can each of us adapt to deal with these different types of risks?
Giddens theorizes four possible adaptation reactions to the different types of risks inherent in modernity
(1994: 141):
Pragmatic acceptance (focus on everyday problems);
Stubborn optimism (optimist on all fronts and in a long run);
Cynical pessimism (pessimist with a humorous response);
Radical commitment (practical challenge to sources of danger).
These four types of reactions could be identify as four factors, which jeopardize and foster the city brand
co-ownership process.
To synthetize the theoretical background, the cognitive and emotional city brand co-ownership depends
on three key elements. First, the city brand strategy is defined by the internal stakeholders and refers to
the boundaries and the attributes of the territory, the targets of the brand and the entity carrying the
strategy. Second, the city brand perceptions of the external stakeholders, which can be positive, negative
or neutral. Third, the relationship between the city brand strategy and the city brand perceptions seem
to be influenced by structuring factors such as pragmatic, optimist, pessimist and radical adaptation
reactions.
2. Research methodology
The research question raised by this article is: how city brand strategy from internal stakeholders is
linked with city brand perceptions from external stakeholders?
International Place Branding Conference 2018
5
Indeed, the main goals of the empirical research are threefold: what is the city brand strategy from
internal stakeholders? What are the city brand perceptions from external stakeholders? How can be
explained the city brand co-ownership? We shed light on the differences and similarities between the
city brand strategy and the city brand perceptions.
The methodological framework is therefore structured to fit these goals. First, we are presenting the
research design and the three cases (i.e. I Amsterdam, Only Lyon, and Inspire Metz) (2.1). Then, we are
explaining the data collection (2.2), and finally the data analysis (2.3).
2.1 Research design and cases characteristics
First of all, the process of city brand co-ownership is considered as an observable phenomenon which
is socially constructed (Berger and Luckman, 1966). As pragmatist (Pierce et al., 1898; Dewey, 2004),
we consider the reality as defined from the experience lived. These basic premises involve a focus on
organization members’ meanings and their interpretations.
Then, we opt for an exploratory and qualitative research design (Snow and Thomas, 1994; Miles et al.,
2014) because the main goal seeks understanding the city brand co-ownership process. Our research
strategy focuses on a multiple case study, because a case study is used to investigate a contemporary
phenomenon within its real-life context (Yin, 2017), and multiple case study is chosen to explore the
research object in several situations. This multiple case study targets three European cities, Amsterdam,
Lyon and Metz, which have developed a city brand strategy.
The cases selection results from the attention paid to the internal validity; the Table 1 underlines that the
three European city have similarities in terms of city brands, and numbers of inhabitants which make
the comparison possible and reliable.
Table 1: The three European city brands
Source: Authors
2.2 Data collection
The data collection is twofold, because we have to confront the city brand strategy defined by the internal
stakeholders with the city brand perceptions of the external stakeholders.
First, we have collected secondary data about the three city brand strategies in order to define the goals
and values of each city brand. The Table 2 presents the public reports dealing with the city brand
strategies.
International Place Branding Conference 2018
6
Table 2: The public reports of the three city brand strategies
Source: Authors
Second, a questionnaire has been sent from the 15th February to the 26th February 2017 in collaboration
with IFOP
1
. A Computer Assisted Web Interview (CAWI) has been addressed to 200 persons
representative of the French population, with criteria of age (18 years old or more), gender, socio-
professional category, region and size of town.
For this study, four questions were asked to the respondents:
The first question aims at collecting respondent associations and definition of the city brand:
“What are the words that come to your mind about the city X? (Five words, verbs, phrases or
qualifiers)”;
The second question seeks to detail the representations of the city brand:“You have just evoked
the element Y of the city X, on what is based this image? (From which elements or sources did
you make this image?)”;
The third question focuses on the meaning of each city brand’s association: Would you say
that the element you have evoked just before is: Very positive / Rather positive / Rather negative
/ Very negative / Neither positive nor negative?;
The last question aims at evaluating the strength of each association: “Would you say that the
image of the city X is: Very positive / Rather positive / Very Negative / Neither positive nor
negative / Do not know?”.
2.3 Data analysis
The data analysis is based on an abductive logic, because it can be defined as “a reasoning process
invoked to explain a puzzling observation (Aliseda, 2006: 28). In this inferential process, interpretation
plays a central role, and it is particularly suitable for the discovery of irregularities in the social sciences
(Koenig, 1993). As exposed above, we focus on the internal stakeholders’ intention and the external
stakeholders’ perception, and we try to understand the differences between the two.
1
French Institute of Public Opinion.
International Place Branding Conference 2018
7
To analyze the primary and secondary data, we choose a thematic content analysis. The content analysis
is based on the assumption that the repetition of speech analysis units reveals the centers of interest, and
the concerns of researchers (Miles et al., 2014). More precisely, the thematic content analysis used a
specific coding process, which consists of cutting the content of a speech into units of analysis (words,
sentences, or themes) and integrating them into categories selected according to the object of research
(Blanc et al., 2014). On the one hand, our unit of analysis refers to a group of sentences (subject,
verb, and object). On the other hand, the definition of our categories (groups of units of analysis) is done
a priori depending on the theoretical background.
We use a content analysis mixing primary and secondary data, referring to a triangulation process, which
improves the internal validity (Eisenhart, 1989). The data analysis is threefold: to synthetize, to make
sense from our data and to increase the richness of the interpretation process (Daniels and Johnson,
2002). The content analysis postulates that the repetition of the discourse analysis units (in this case: the
words) reveals the center of interests of those who are at the origin of these words. More precisely, we
focus on a lexical analysis which is based on the nature and the richness of the vocabulary used in public
reports and in questionnaire’ responses.
3. Findings
As three key elements are structuring the city brand co-ownership (i.e. city brand strategy, city brand
perceptions and structuring factors), we are presenting the findings in three parts. First, the thematic
analysis of the secondary data is showing the major characteristics of the three city brand strategies
(3.1). Then, the content analysis of the primary data is focusing on the city brand perceptions of the
external stakeholders (3.2). Finally, we are presenting a typology of adaptation reactions from the
external stakeholders (3.3).
3.1 Goals and values of city brand strategies defined by the internal stakeholders
As shown in the Table 3, the three city brand strategies have similar objectives in order to face an
increased international competition. I Amsterdam, Only Lyon and Inspire Metz are identified in a
globalized world to highlight their assets and to strengthen their global attractiveness. They focused on
holistic strategies, targeting inhabitants, visitors and companies.
However, each city brand strategy has identified different key values and specific attributes on which to
build their strategies. The French metropolises used more values and attributes than the Dutch.
International Place Branding Conference 2018
8
Table 3: The elements defining the three city brand strategies
Source: Authors
3.2 Positive, neutral and negative perceptions of the city brand by the external stakeholders
As shown in the Table 4, the perceptions of the city brands by external stakeholders were identified by
three main themes. First, the key references are related to the key values of the city, the personality of
the place, and the personalities associated to the city. Second, the cultural life refers to the brand flags
such as the famous monuments, and the cultural events. Third, the projects of economic vitality are
understood as industrial, urban and economic development projects. These perceptions can be positive,
negative or neutral and are illustrated by most relevant verbatim.
Table 4: The perceptions of the city brands by the external stakeholders
Source: Authors
International Place Branding Conference 2018
9
Most of the respondents have a positive global image of the three cities, even if Metz is quite less known.
Positive associations concern mainly the beauty of places and their cultural heritage (e.g. “Canals”,
“Gastronomy”, “Cathedral”). Amsterdam is clearly associated with museums, Lyon with the Festival
of Lights and Metz with the Centre Pompidou. The economic vitality of Amsterdam and Lyon are
recognized (e.g. “Great port”, “Touristic”, “Dynamism”), while Metz is identified as a suffering
territory (e.g. “Unemployment”). Moreover, the way of life in Amsterdam is perceived as very pleasant
and environmentally friendly (e.g. “Bikes”, “Green”). However, drugs liberalization and prostitution
create a negative perception of the city. If Lyon is considered as a vibrant city, traffic jams and pollution
counterbalance this positive image. In Metz, local gastronomy and the Moselle River are positive factors
while the harsh climate is considered as inhospitable.
3.3 Structuring factors influencing the city brand co-ownership
As shown in the Table 5, three types of adaptation reactions of the external stakeholders are
identified: stubborn optimism, cynical pessimism, and radical commitment. If the stubborn optimism
refers to an optimist state of mind, the cynical pessimism illustrates the contrary. However, a radical
commitment highlights antagonistic associations such as “Fantastic” and “Too much touristic” for
Amsterdam, “Huge” and “Unattractive” for Lyon, “So far” and “Welcoming” for Metz.
Table 5: The three types of factors influencing the city brands co-ownership
Source: Authors
4. Discussion
As shown in the Figure 2 above, the discussion highlights a dynamic city brand co-ownership model
within the relationship between the city brand strategy and the city brand perceptions are influenced by
structuring factors. Indeed, we confront the findings to the literature, and answer our theoretical goal.
We opt for a “progressive approach” of city branding (Green et al., 2016), therefore the city brand co-
ownership refers to the complexity and uncertainty of the city brand, which claims for a collaborative
and participatory city brand management. Indeed, the city brand co-ownership model we propose is a
dynamic one; the opposite of a linear model based on cause and effect links.
First, Vuignier (2018) has identified in the literature four key elements to define a city brand strategy:
the boundaries (1) and the specific attributes (2) of the territories, the targets of the brand (3), and the
entity carrying the strategy (4). We propose to add the key values and the goals, without which the
strategy can’t be defined. The key values are mainly defined with a territory profile, which is the result
of the external stakeholders’ point of view. Indeed, the specific attributes of the territory are better
recognized by the internal and external stakeholders (Braun et al., 2013; Meyronin, 2015). Moreover,
the goals of the city brand strategy are linking the specific attributes and the values of the territory with
the targets.
Second, we consider city brand perceptions in a cognitive and emotional approach (Adams, 2009),
referring to a set of positive, negative, and neutral associations (Boisen et al., 2011). We propose a
taxonomy of three major city brand components: the key references, the cultural life, and the projects of
International Place Branding Conference 2018
10
economic vitality, which can be appreciated by the external stakeholders positively, negatively and
neutrally. The key references refer to the key values of the city, the personality of the place, and the
personalities associated to the city. The cultural life can be understood as the brand flags and the cultural
events. The projects of economic vitality are industrial, urban and economic development projects.
Third, the structuring factors are moderating the relationship between the city brand strategy components
defined by the internal stakeholders and the city brand perceptions of the external stakeholders (i.e. the
residents, the companies and the visitors). According to a circular and reflexive vision of the world
(Giddens, 1987, 1994; Beck, 2001), the city brand is considered as a management tool (Urde, 1994)
socially constructed. Indeed, the city brand co-ownership is influenced by three structuring factors
related to three adaptation reactions. First, the stubborn optimism is an optimist reaction on all fronts
and in a long run. Second, the cynical pessimism is a pessimist reaction associated with a humorous
response. Third, the radical commitment is an antagonist and emotional reaction that can be either
positive or negative.
The pragmatic acceptance identified by Giddens (1994) refers to a focus on everyday problems, and this
kind of reaction isn’t identified in a city brand co-ownership. The city brand strategy aims at answering
the everyday problems of the residents (i.e. improving the quality of life), the tourists (i.e. proposing a
quality tourist offer), and the companies (i.e. encouraging the establishment of businesses and the
development of economic activity). Indeed, either the strategy answers the everyday problems and the
reaction is optimist, or the strategy does not answer the problems and the reaction is pessimist, or the
reaction is contrasted and emotionally lively in a radical way.
Figure 2: A dynamic city brand co-ownership model
Source: Authors
Finally, in a managerial perspective, the city brand co-ownership model can be understood as a grid that
public managers can use to adapt their objectives, methods and promotion channels according to their
targets.
Conclusion
To conclude, we are answering the research question: how city brand strategy from internal stakeholders
is linked with city brand perceptions from external stakeholders?
The goal is to fulfil the gap identified in the literature about the differences and the matches between the
city brand strategy carried by public managers and the perceptions of the external stakeholders (i.e. the
residents, the companies and the visitors). In a broad evolutionary shift, we consider the city brand in a
progressive approach, and therefore the city brand co-ownership is understood as a collaborative and
participatory city brand process.
We opted for an exploratory and qualitative research design with a multiple case study targeting three
European metropolises: Amsterdam, Lyon, and Metz. To analyze the city brand strategies defined by
the internal stakeholders, we collected secondary data (i.e. public reports), and to understand the city
brand perceptions of external stakeholders, we collected 200 answers from a French representative
sample. Primary and secondary data are analyzed with a thematic content analysis.
International Place Branding Conference 2018
11
We propose a dynamic city brand co-ownership model within the relationship between the city brand
strategy and the city brand perceptions are influenced by structuring factors.
First, the city brand strategy is composed by six key elements: the boundaries (1) and the specific
attributes (2) of the territories, the targets of the brand (3), the reference entity (4), the keys values (5)
and the goals (6) of the brand strategy. The last two components are added to the typology proposed by
Vuignier (2018).
Second, we defined a taxonomy of three major city brand components: the key references, the cultural
life, and the projects of economic vitality. These elements can be appreciated positively, negatively and
neutrally by the external stakeholders.
Third, we identified three structuring factors which are moderating the relationship between the city
brand strategy components and the city brand perceptions. The three factors refer to three types of
adaptation reactions identified by Giddens (1994) in a circular and reflexive vision of the word. The
stubborn optimism (1) is an optimist reaction on all fronts and in a long run, the cynical pessimism (2)
is a pessimist reaction associated with a humorous response, and the radical commitment (3) is an
antagonist and emotional reaction that can be either positive or negative.
The exploratory and qualitative design resulted in a richness of findings which does not come without
limitations. We have studied a multiple case study focusing on the exclusive perception of French people
to assess city brand co-ownership, and it reduces the external validity of our findings. Indeed, future
researches could test the model of city brand co-ownership in a confirmative and quantitative study.
Moreover, as the city brand co-ownership is considered as a process, it would be interesting to
understand and explain different types of city brand co-ownership trajectories. Future research could
therefore appreciate this evolution through a longitudinal and processual analysis.
“All limitation is dictated only by time, by means of an inner necessity, and therefore any limitation can
only be temporary” (Kandinsky, 1954).
Bibliography
Adams, P.C. (2009), Geographies of Media and Communication, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.
Aliseda, A. (2006). Abductive reasoning. Dordrecht: Springer.
Anholt, S. (2010), Places: Identity, Image and Reputation, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Barthes, R., & Howard, R. (1991). The responsibility of forms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Beck, U. (2001). La Société du Risque: sur la voie d’une autre moderni. Paris : Editions Flammarion,
Collection « Champs Essais ».
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of knowledge: A treatise in the sociology
of knowledge. New York: Doubleday.
Blanc, A., Drucker-Godard, C., Ehlinger, S. (2014). « Exploitation des données textuelles ». Thiétart,
R-A. (2014). Méthodes de recherche en management. Paris : Dunod, pp. 551-573.
Boisen, M. (2008). Cities are not products, so stop trying to sell them as such. Paper presented at the
1st International Place Branding Conference: “Marketing Cities: Place Branding in Perspective”,
Berlin, 4-6 December, Germany.
Boisen, M., Terlouw, K., & van Gorp, B. (2011). The selective nature of place branding and the layering
of spatial identities. Journal of Place Management and Development, 4(2), 135-147.
Braun, E. (2008). City Marketing: Towards an Integrated Approach. PhD Dissertation.
Erasmus: University Rotterdam.
Braun, E., Kavaratzis, M., & Zenker, S. (2013). My citymy brand: the different roles of residents in
place branding. Journal of Place Management and Development, 6(1), 18-28.
Daniels, K., & Johnson, G. (2002). On trees and triviality traps: Locating the debate on the contribution
of cognitive mapping to organizational research. Organization Studies, 23(1), 73-81.
Dewey, J. (2004). Comment nous pensons. Paris : Les empêcheurs de penser en rond.
Dinnie, K. (2011). Introduction to the theory of city branding. In City Branding (pp. 3-7). London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of management
review, 14(1), 57-74.
International Place Branding Conference 2018
12
Eshuis, J., Braun, E., & Klijn, E. H. (2013). Place marketing as governance strategy: An assessment of
obstacles in place marketing and their effects on attracting target groups. Public Administration
Review, 73(3), 507-516.
Giddens, A. (1987). La constitution de la société. Eléments de la théorie de la structuration. Paris :
Editions PUF, Collection « Sociologies ».
Giddens, A. (1994). Les conséquences de la modernité. Paris : Editions L’Harmattan, Collection
« Théorie sociale contemporaine ».
Green, A., Grace, D., & Perkins, H. (2016). City branding research and practice: An integrative
review. Journal of Brand Management, 23(3), 252-272.
Hospers, G. J. (2010). Making sense of place: from cold to warm city marketing. Journal of place
management and development, 3(3), 182-193.
Kapferer, J. N. (1997). Strategic brand management: creating and sustaining brand equity long term.
London: Kogan Page.
Kapferer, J. N. (2013). -inventer les marques: La fin des marques telles que nous les connaissons.
Paris : Editions Eyrolles.
Kavaratzis, M. (2009). Cities and their brands: Lessons from corporate branding. Place Branding and
Public Diplomacy, 5(1), 2637.
Koenig, G. (1993). Production de la connaissance et constitution des pratiques organisationnelles. Revue
de Gestion des Ressources Humaines, (9), 4-7.
Husser, J., André, J. M., Barbat, G., & Lespinet-Najib, V. (2012). CSR and sustainable development:
are the concepts compatible?. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 23(6),
658-672.
Kavaratzis, M., Warnaby, G., & Ashworth, G. J. (2015). Rethinking Place Branding. Netherlands:
Springer.
Kavaratzis, M., & Hatch, M. J. (2013). The dynamics of place brands: An identity-based approach to
place branding theory. Marketing theory, 13(1), 69-86.
Lucarelli, A., & Olof Berg, P. (2011). City branding: a state-of-the-art review of the research
domain. Journal of place management and development, 4(1), 9-27.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Peirce, C. S. (1998). Le raisonnement et la logique des choses. Paris : Editions du Cerf, Collection
Passages.
Rochette, C. (2016). La marque publique. Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches. Auvergne University,
defended on December 8th.
Sevin, E. (2011). Thinking about place branding: Ethics of concept. Place Branding and Public
Diplomacy, 7(3), 155-164.
Skinner, H. (2008). The emergence and development of place marketing's confused identity. Journal of
marketing management, 24(9-10), 915-928.
Snow, C. C., & Thomas, J. B. (1994). Field research methods in strategic management: contributions to
theory building and testing. Journal of management studies, 31(4), 457-480.
Trueman, M. M., Cornelius, N., & Killingbeck-Widdup, A. J. (2007). Urban corridors and the lost city:
Overcoming negative perceptions to reposition city brands. Journal of Brand Management, 15(1), 20-
31.
Urde, M. (1994). Brand orientationa strategy for survival. Journal of consumer marketing, 11(3), 18-
32.
Vuignier, R. (2018). Attractivité des territoires et place branding: étude exploratoire de la sensibilité
des décideurs d’entreprise à la marque territoriale. PhD Dissertation. IDHEAP: Lausanne University,
defended on April 18th.
Wiedmann, K. P. (2014). The future of brand and brand management. Some provocative propositions
from a more methodological perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 21(9), 743757.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage publications.
Zenker, S. (2011). How to catch a city? The concept and measurement of place brands. Journal of Place
Management and Development, 4(1), 40-52.
Chapter
Full-text available
Bu bölümde kapsayıcı ve katılımcı bir şehir markalamanın nasıl yapılabileceğini örneklerle birlikte açıklıyoruz. Öncelikle, ilk kısımda, ilgili kavramlar üstünden kapsayıcı ve katılımcı şehir markalamanın öneminden ve boyutlarından bahsediyoruz. Ardından, şehir markalama indeksinin altı boyutunu katılımcılık ve kapsayıcılık üstünden örneklerle değerlendiriyoruz. Devamında ise kapsayıcı ve katılımcı şehir markalama için gelecek on yılda ön plana çıkacak yönetsel yaklaşımlara bir bakış sunuyoruz.
Thesis
Full-text available
This research in public administration is interested in the area of study now commonly referred to as place branding. After presenting an overview of the main challenges at stake for public managers involved in place marketing, it first explores the wide spread of projects in this field and the frequent use of place brands in Switzerland, in Europe and in the world, as well as presents place branding as an emerging scientific field of study (Chapter 1). Second, it displays and clarifies how the place brand concept is understood in the scientific literature and in practice (Chapter 2). A focus on the supposed link between place branding and attractiveness for companies questions the sensitivity of companies to place brands in their process of choosing a location or relocation (Chapter 3). Indeed, although the strategies adopted are based on great expectations as to their ability to be effective, the role of the place brand regarding the attractiveness of companies and investments has rarely been studied empirically (Cleave, Arku, Sadler & Gilliland, 2016b; Jacobsen, 2009, 2012). To understand the role played by place brands in the location process, an empirical study is conducted in the Canton of Vaud, Switzerland with decision-makers from companies in ten sectors of activity, as prioritized by public authorities in their economic development strategy, that have recently chosen to settle there. The attractiveness of this canton in recent years and the fact that it has developed a place marketing strategy including the launch of the brand VAUD+ make it a relevant case to empirically explore the effect of place brand (Chapter 4). To do this, a tool for measuring the effect of the territorial brand is built around a double adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis ACBC (Orme, 2014a), complemented with a rating exercise and semi-structured interviews (Chapter 5). Based on the vast literature on firm location decisions (Dunning & Lundan, 2008, Laulajainen & Stafford, 1995) and the concept of brand equity (Aaker, 1991, Keller, 1993), I argue that it is relevant to analyze the role of the place brand in relation to well-established attractiveness factors, such as infrastructure, labor, taxation, regulatory framework, cluster policy, incentives for research and development (R&D) or quality of life. It is then necessary to consider the effect of place brands as « relative » effect in a specific decision-making context. The results are presented (Chapter 6) and then analyzed in the context of an interpretative analysis (Chapter 7). They then make it possible to identify new lines of research and to suggest managerial implications (Chapter 8). The analysis highlights two trends. First, in line with existing literature, our results confirm that business location and relocation decisions are based primarily on well-established attractiveness factors. Second, our results show a slight « place brand effect » because some sensitivity to the place brand is observed among business decision-makers. For a minority of respondents there is either no effect, a slight effect or a particular effect, and for a majority a summary construct effect, which refers to the process by which the brand synthesizes information in the decision-maker's mind (Han, 1989). In our case, the latter means that corporate decision-makers tend to associate the place brand with specific attractiveness factors. In other words, the brand summarizes the existing attractiveness factors and acts as a shortcut during the siting selection process. Thus, this research contributes to further develop the place brand and place brand equity concepts from the point of view of attractiveness for companies (Cleave et al., 2016b; Jacobsen, 2012; Metaxas, 2010b; Papadopoulos, Hamzaoui-Essoussi & El Banna, 2016). Acknowledging the need to (better) measure the effectiveness of place brands (Zenker & Braun, 2015), it builds on a method widely used in classic marketing – conjoint analysis – to propose an original way to measure the effect of place brands in the context of a location decision.
Article
Full-text available
Closing the gap between theory and practice presents a major challenge for branding. However, a disconnect has formed between city branding research and practice. This article argues that the divergent evolutionary paths of city branding research and practice contribute to this disconnect. Specifically, we review the evolution of city branding research and practice through a macroscopic lens in order to delineate major shifts in the philosophies and assumptions shaping each trajectory. In terms of practice, we map the development of city brand management over five waves covering primitive attempts to adjust what cities mean to people, boosterish city promotion, entrepreneurial urban governance, formalised city marketing and, finally, a rhetorical city brand focus. We then identify four major waves in city branding research: (i) initial possibilities, (ii) application and adaption of existing branding theory, (iii) development of a critical lens and (iv) progressive approaches that intersect with the co-creation branding paradigm. As well as providing a basis for mutual understanding and collaboration between researchers and practitioners, examination of both evolutionary paths indicates major research gaps in the city branding literature that appear particularly pertinent to bridging the city branding theory-practice gap.
Article
Full-text available
This article introduces a novel approach towards place branding theory, adopting a view based on the relationship between the place brand and place identity. The article first evaluates the dominant conceptualization of identity within place branding. It is argued that better understanding of the relationship between place identity and place brands might advance the theory of place branding. In its current state, place branding practice and, to a great extent, place branding literature adopt a rather static view on place identity as something that can easily be articulated and communicated for the purposes of branding the place. This approach is limited as it does not reveal the full complexity of place identity and limits the role and potential of place branding. The article, drawing on a combination of the literatures on place identity and organisational identity, proposes a more dynamic view of place identity that considers identity a constant dialogue between the internal and the external. The role of branding within the identity dialogue is then clarified leading to an appreciation of the full dynamics of place brands. The true nature of place branding is revealed as one of interaction and dialogue between stakeholders.
Chapter
City branding is a topic of significant interest to both academics and policy makers. As cities compete globally to attract tourism, investment and talent, as well as to achieve many other objectives, the concepts of brand strategy are increasingly adopted from the commercial world and applied in pursuit of urban development, regeneration and quality of life. Much of the published research into city branding originates in the disciplines of marketing and urban studies, two fields that have tended to follow parallel rather than interdisciplinary paths. By drawing upon a range of contributors from diverse theoretical backgrounds, the chapters in Part I of the book aim to provide richly differing perspectives on the theory of city branding. This chapter highlights some of the key themes in the city branding literature, provides an overview of the core concepts addressed by the authors of the chapters that appear in Part I of the book, and links these themes and concepts to the examples of city branding practice that appear in Part II.
Article
Le diagnostic de l'expert français des marques Au moment où chacun s'interroge sur la Marque France, sur notre industrie, sur nos marques, sur les délocalisations, il est important d'analyser les causes profondes de cette situation. Un certain management des marques n'a-t-il pas vécu ? En tous cas il n'a pas empêché l'ascension des marques de distributeur. Mais, en même temps, la marque se diffuse dans toutes les sphères de notre vie publique comme privée. On peut parler de "tout marque". Contradiction ? Ou bien est-ce la notion même de marque qui a changé ? Il faut alors revoir toutes nos méthodes, nos visions. Fort de son expérience de consultant dans tous les secteurs de notre économie et de sa vision mondiale, l'auteur apporte une analyse sans concession sur la situation présente et ses causes. S'appuyant sur de nombreux exemples, il propose des voies et des méthodes nouvelles pour construire des marques plus fortes. En premier lieu pour la Marque France.
Chapter
Within place branding, culture is assumed to create positive associations with the place and is, therefore, used extensively. However, we argue that the understanding of culture is inadequate and leads to disconnection between local culture and the place brand instead of synergy. A critical evaluation of the methods commonly used reveals that culture is misinterpreted and oversimplified. The article discusses significant tensions relating to the dominance of certain cultural elements and actors and the effects on identity. The relationship between place brands and culture is reconstructed through a re-appreciation of its complexity and reciprocity. Synergies are found in understanding culture as a process of meaning production and in clarifying the role of place brands (as cultural phenomena themselves) in culture.
Article
Purpose – This paper deals with the importance of residents within place branding. The aim of this paper is to examine the different roles that residents play in the formation and communication of place brands and explores the implications for place brand management. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on theoretical insights drawn from the combination of the distinct literatures on place branding, general marketing, tourism, human geography, and collaborative governance. To support its arguments, the paper discusses the participation of citizens in governance processes as highlighted in the urban governance literature as well as the debate among marketing scholars over participatory marketing and branding. Findings – The paper arrive at three different roles played by the residents: as an integral part of the place brand through their characteristics and behavior; as ambassadors for their place brand who grant credibility to any communicated message; and as citizens and voters who are vital for the political legitimization of place branding. These three roles make the residents a very significant target group of place branding. Originality/value – Residents are largely neglected by place branding practice and their priorities are often misunderstood, even though they are not passive beneficiaries but are active partners and co‐producers of public goods, services and policies. This paper highlights that only meaningful participation and consultation can produce a more effective and sustainable place branding strengthening the brand communication and avoiding the pitfall of developing “artificial” place brands.