Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Tourism and Hospitality
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Stoica, I.S.; Kavaratzis, M.;
Schwabenland, C.; Haag, M. Place
Brand Co-Creation through
Storytelling: Benefits, Risks and
Preconditions. Tour. Hosp. 2022,3,
15–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/
tourhosp3010002
Academic Editors: Alex Deffner and
Brian Garrod
Received: 14 November 2021
Accepted: 28 December 2021
Published: 30 December 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Article
Place Brand Co-Creation through Storytelling: Benefits, Risks
and Preconditions
Ioana S. Stoica 1, * , Mihalis Kavaratzis 2, Christina Schwabenland 1and Markus Haag 1
1Business and Management Research Institute, University of Bedfordshire, Luton LU1 3JA, UK;
christina.schwabenland@beds.ac.uk (C.S.); markus.haag@beds.ac.uk (M.H.)
2
School of Management, Manchester Metropolitan University, All Saints Building, Manchester M15 6BH, UK;
mk302@leicester.ac.uk
*Correspondence: ioana.stoica@beds.ac.uk
Abstract:
Co-creation in place branding is used as an umbrella term for the complex brand meaning
emerging through stakeholders’ participation in place activities, their contribution, collaborations
and interchange of ideas and resources. Co-creation is often an aspiration for places to create and
promote their brands collectively. In this context, storytelling—an old technique used in corporate
marketing to instigate brand stakeholders’ participation—serves as a method which facilitates place
brand co-creation through shared place stories. With the rise of online interactions, the chances of
place stakeholders’ participation in brand meaning creation increase, and place stories are effective in
allowing diverse place meanings to emerge from various stakeholders. However, when storytelling
emerges as a marketing tactic, mostly from a top-down campaign, the stories are not always accepted
by all place stakeholders, and they create contrasting brand meanings. The paper aims to investigate
the benefits and risks of participation in “Many Voices One Town” (2018), a top-down campaign from
Luton, UK, which used storytelling to instigate place brand co-creation. The campaign was created
by the Luton Council with an external advertising agency. The campaign attempted to tackle the
town’s segregation issues and foster community cohesion through the promotion of seven selected
Lutonians’ stories about their diverse and multicultural experiences of living in Luton. The study
employs a qualitative methodology to analyse the MVOT case study. Interviews with the council
and participants in the campaign and netnographic data from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram
were used to gain an insight into residents’ participation in a top-down approach and examine the
outcomes of co-creation. Residents’ participation in such a campaign shows numerous benefits but
also risks for the place brand. The findings show that participation can sometimes intensify disputes
about the town if people’s needs are not properly addressed. The study highlights the importance of
open communication between all parties involved in the process, bringing into focus the need for
careful coordination of top-down initiatives in line with stakeholders’ needs. It also demonstrates the
‘power of the people’ in the sense that stakeholder engagement with the shared stories led to negative
outcomes that were not predicted by the Council.
Keywords:
place branding; place brand co-creation; storytelling; stakeholders’ participation; expert
interview; netnographic data; storyteller recruitment; Luton
1. Introduction
Adding to the considerations of place branding as a holistic and integrated concept,
place brand co-creation has become a point of discussion for many place practitioners and
academics who debate the meanings associated with stakeholders’ involvement, brand co-
creation and its benefits. Place brand co-creation, which has its roots in participatory brand
culture and service dominant logic, reinforces the debates on the impact of stakeholders’
involvement in the brand activities, see, e.g., in [
1
]. In this context, storytelling—an old
technique used in corporate marketing to instigate brand stakeholders’ participation—
serves as a method which facilitates place brand co-creation through shared place stories.
Tour. Hosp. 2022,3, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp3010002 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/tourismhosp
Tour. Hosp. 2022,316
With the rise of online interactions, the chances of place stakeholders’ participation in brand
meaning creation increase and place stories are effective in allowing diverse place meanings
to emerge from various stakeholders.
Co-creation is often an aspiration for places to create and promote their brands col-
lectively through stakeholders’ involvement. This involvement, as presented by most
literature, is seen as beneficial for the place brand as it can increase customer satisfaction,
strengthen social cohesion and democratise public services [
2
]; increase place differentiation
and competitive advantage [
3
–
5
]; reduce the gap between the perceived and projected
images together with the tensions emerging from this gap [
3
,
6
,
7
]; offer credibility to the
brand [8,9]; and improve destination images and create sustainable place brands [10–12].
All these positive outcomes of co-creation create the illusion that co-creation is an
ideal process through which the brand can sustainably develop. However, this process is
not yet fully understood and there are attempts in the literature to suggest some negative
effects of co-creation and participation, see, e.g., in [
13
]. The negative aspects of co-creation
lie in the risk involved in open brands where the brand’s control is shared between the
stakeholders [
14
]. Some authors further emphasise the idea of brand co-destruction due
to stakeholders’ misunderstandings of the brand or tensions created by various groups
and brand managers [
13
–
16
]. Many of the stakeholders’ involvement and co-creation
studies in place branding are hesitant to problematise the adverse effects of stakeholders’
involvement. This hesitancy/reluctancy comes from our misunderstanding of the co-
creation as a process through which stakeholders are involved in the brand creation and
communication [
5
] mostly as equal partners. However, there are studies which conclude
that equal participation from all parties is not practiced in place branding [
7
,
17
] and when
this involvement/stakeholders’ participation does not follow a service dominant logic,
results in a process dominated most often by the municipality or brand managers. This
dominance is rarely perceived as beneficial for the place brand as the other stakeholders
(usually residents and tourists) create messages that contradict official place communication.
What that means in a storytelling context is that co-creation processes could possibly show
different outcomes especially when storytelling is used as a top-down marketing tactic, and
the stories are not accepted by all place stakeholders creating contrasting brand meanings.
This article is investigating storytelling as a means for brand meaning co-creation. It
aims to investigate the benefits and risks involved when stakeholders are asked to partici-
pate in place brand co-creation through storytelling. There are, of course, many types of
internal and external stakeholders that affect place branding projects (e.g., residents, local
companies, local communities, local companies, investors, visitors and potential visitors
etc.), but our study focuses particularly on the relation between positive and negative
outcomes of storytelling co-creation between residents and municipality. The focus of the
article is the campaign “Many Voices One Town” in Luton, UK. “Many Voices One Town”
(MVOT) was a top-down initiative that attempted to tackle the town’s segregation issues
and foster community cohesion through the promotion of seven selected Lutonians’ stories
about their diverse and multicultural experiences of living in Luton. It was created by
the Luton Council in partnership with a creative agency from London, UK government
programme “Building Stronger Britain Together” and a network of people from Luton’s
previous campaign—“Luton in Harmony”. The previous campaign (“Luton in Harmony”)
had the aim of establishing and improving community cohesion and fighting against ex-
tremism in the town but was highly critiqued because it was funded through a government
anti-terrorism strategy scheme, which the main town’s community leaders opposed. Thus,
the council created MVOT to move away from the previous stigma attached to the “Luton in
Harmony” brand and try a different approach [
18
], whereas “Luton in Harmony” asked for
peoples’ participation through signing a pledge for peace and community understanding,
MVOT was focused on storytelling and tried to engage with the residents by promoting
their stories. The campaign featured the individual stories of seven young residents chosen
by the council to advocate and discuss their local experiences and their admiration for
Luton. The campaign used Lutonians’ personal stories to celebrate the diversity within the
Tour. Hosp. 2022,317
town and create the face of Luton by showing the town in a positive light on social media,
print and news outlets.
The next section describes the theoretical background of the study, exploring the
literature around place brand co-creation, storytelling and co-destruction. Then, we detail
the methodology used to study MVOT. This is followed by the presentation of the findings
around co-creation through storytelling and a discussion of its outcomes framed in the
opposing concepts of co-creation and co-destruction. Finally, three causes of negative
co-creation outcomes are identified. This this study contributes to a better understanding
of place brand co-creation and stakeholder participation in place branding strategies,
especially for places with a negative reputation such as Luton
2. Literature Review
2.1. Co-Creation for Places and Destinations
For many, “co-creation refers to the active involvement of end-users in various stages
of the production process” [
2
] (p. 1335) and is captured in terms such as co-management, co-
delivery and co-assessment [
19
], or co-design and co-implementation [
2
]. A more abstract
view is also evident that focuses on meaning co-creation through the influence stakeholders
have on each other through their usual, ordinary relationships and their routine, everyday
activities [
20
]. In a service setting, it has been shown that participation and co-creation
increase the customers’ economic, emotional and relational value [
21
]. In a place setting,
the participants in this value and meaning co-creation process are the place’s various
stakeholder groups and prominent amongst them are the residents [
22
,
23
]. As noted
above, this study focuses on co-creation of place brand meaning between the residents
and municipality. Such a brand co-creation approach within place branding brings along
significant benefits [
23
] because of the co-creational nature of places [
24
], which becomes
prominent when the personal construction of places is considered. People create places
by interpreting them personally and this personal interpretation relates to all place-based
elements including the physical and the symbolic aspects of place. For instance, Urry [
25
]
(p. 24) argues that “the city is a repository for peoples’ memories (
. . .
) these memories are
embodied in buildings that can take on a significance very different form that intended by
their architect”.
In a co-creational approach, stakeholders become place makers and place marketers
through word-of-mouth (WOM), social media and online communities [
26
]. For desti-
nations, the internet provides the medium which empowers residents (or stakeholders)
in destination marketing [
10
] and they become even more important because the online
environment creates a new challenge for marketers to deal with: brands are becoming a
projection of audiences’ conversations on social networks rather than a consequence of mar-
keting strategies [
27
]. As Skinner notes, social media are the main means for stakeholder
co-creation using and projecting a place’s organic images [28].
Organic images were a starting point of understanding place brand co-creation in
tourism where researchers investigated tourists’ organic content about destinations [
29
,
30
]
because tourists “construct personal narratives of the places they encounter” [
31
] (p. 5).
These personal narratives in time could merge with place’s official storylines or com-
pletely alter the place’s story. Examining the role of residents in destination branding,
Uchinaka et al. [9]
found that the residents are considered more authentic sources of infor-
mation and they influence directly the destination marketing efforts by being ambassadors
of the place and active promoters in social media.
In the literature, stakeholder participation in brand communication for destinations
is mostly associated with positive outcomes. Focusing on the residents, Choo, Park and
Petrick [
32
] suggest that residents can help promote destinations if they are involved in
the internal branding process. The study proposes that residents choose to promote the
destination if they feel they can identify with the place. Furthermore, destinations can
become more sustainable if they involve residents in their branding and promotions [
12
].
The sustainability comes from the residents’ feeling of responsibility to the place and its
Tour. Hosp. 2022,318
image, which is explained by Jeuring and Haartsen’s study [
11
]. The study suggests that
residents would engage in promotion of positive destination images through WOM when
they feel a sense of self-responsibility. This positive WOM is inhibited when residents leave
the responsibility to promote destination images to the regional municipality. This is also
supported by Kemp, Williams and Bordelon’s study, which suggests that that aligning
marketing activities with residents’ perception of the brand influences residents to become
committed to the destination’s branding efforts, leading them to become advocates or
‘evangelists’ of the brand [33].
Moreover, place attachment theory suggests that tourists’ and residents’ emotional
bonds give them reasons for place satisfaction and authenticity [
7
,
34
]. The theory is linked
with place identity and numerous authors argue that the residents’ place satisfaction,
their attachment and their sense of place are critical for a successful promotion of the
place [7,35–38].
2.2. Storytelling
In marketing, storytelling is employed as a promotional tool to expose an appealing
narrative about a service, product or organisation, and stories “focus on conveying the
brand values through emotion-laden” narratives [39] (p. 289).
In place branding, storytelling is “bridging the gaps between what the stakeholders
perceive to be important by finding, encouraging or generating stories that all parties can
relate to” [
40
] (p.115). Storytelling may also increase the willingness of different stakehold-
ers to participate in place branding, making them more active in the place communication
process if they identify themselves with the promoted place story [
41
]. Storytelling in
destination branding reinforces community members’ engagement, enhances the customer
value [
42
] and promotes differentiation between destinations [
43
]. However, Youssef,
Leicht and Marongiu [
43
], while discussing the importance of storytelling in promoting
unique destination brands, highlight the importance of involving all place stakeholders
in the creation process of the place brand associations and stories to enhance customer
value and satisfaction with the destination. There is evidence from the literature that
storytelling could be more successful in enhancing customer value and satisfaction if it is
creating experiences focused on the hedonic benefits of the tourists rather than utilitarian
services [44].
Storytelling for places can be enabled by the online environment which facilitates
consumers’ capacity to access stories about products, services or places and share their own
experiences [
45
–
47
]. Online storytelling is highlighted in previous research because online
stories have greater potential to become viral, spreading around the world very quickly [
26
].
In Pera’s [
42
] view, the customer travel experience is shaping other customers behaviors in
relation to the destination using online reviews as “powerful storytelling artefacts” (p.2). In
this context, residents might be playing a vital role because they are “living the brand” [
48
]
(p. 653), thus experiencing the stories about the place. Hudak argues that one of the best
ways to apply participatory place branding is through digital storytelling by the residents,
because they can share their experiences and perceptions in meaningful ways and promote
a collaborative place brand [
49
]. In Hudak’s view, through digital storytelling residents
will feel “empowered to share their stories and community initiatives will be supported (
. .. ) leading to a unique place brand narrative” [49] (p. 97).
There is limited research that examines storytelling and residents’ roles for place
brands, however, looking back at the impact of storytelling for corporate brands, see, e.g.,
in [
50
], we can argue that residents might play a very interesting role in creating place
stories. Moreover, considering places with negative reputation such as Luton investigated
in this study, residents’ stories might have a very interesting role to play in building the
image of a town. Their role in this context is not yet clarified in previous research.
Tour. Hosp. 2022,319
2.3. Co-Destruction
While most studies focus on the co-creation process for bringing value to the brand,
other studies present the negative side of it: co-destruction [
15
,
16
,
51
,
52
]. Co-destruction of
the brand is presented in the literature in multiple shapes, usually through negative stake-
holders’ attitudes which can damage the brand. For instance, residents might assume the
role of activists [
53
] and launch their own, community-based counter campaigns or boycott
and actively oppose formal communications by the authorities. These negative attitudes
are usually the outcomes of the tensions between the stakeholders (for example between
residents and local authorities) or misunderstandings of the brand and its development
activities [13].
Residents can co-destruct the brand when they do not identify with it or they disagree
with its development and communication [
5
]. However, some explanations of residents’
negative attitudes and co-destruction of the brand are not only related to the fact that
residents disagreed with a certain projected image of the brand, but they also suggested
that, for residents, places’ brands are more complex than destinations’ brands [
54
], and this
complexity is not always well-presented in the place promotion, marketing and branding
literature. For example, a study analysing how residents perceived Shanghai [
6
] observed
that some concepts promoted by the authorities were not fully recognised by the residents
(e.g., Shanghai Expo), thus causing a mismatch in the place communication. The authors
argue that residents form their preconceptions about the place “based on both individual
experience and official vision” and that “Shanghai branding should properly conceptualise
and manage the city’s core values with residents’ participation in policy making process”
(p. 207).
It could be concluded that some co-destruction beliefs reside in the negative com-
munication of the brand messages usually created when “the competitive place identity
and the place brand identity are unknowingly far removed from the identities held by
residents” [
55
] (p. 1085). Due to their wider knowledge about the place, residents can easily
disagree with an oversimplified place brand [
54
]. The fact that marketing activities need
to illustrate the residents’ perceptions about the place is explained in Shafranskaya and
Potapov’s study [
56
]. In their investigation on the Russian town of Perm, they found that
the city brand failure was rooted in poor communication of the brand message and the
implementation of unsuccessful campaigns which did not illustrate a credible place image,
instigating residents’ revolts. By doing this, the residents’ attitudes acted against the brand,
co-destructing the brand. The authors suggest that “city branding is an outcome of city
quality” and “the integral ability to satisfy residents” needs’ (p. 128).
3. Materials and Methods
The study uses a qualitative methodology to investigate storytelling and co-creation
in a case study. Yin argues that case study can be an option for seeking to explore the topic
and “require an extensive and ‘in-depth’ description of some social phenomenon” [
57
]
(p. 4)
. Case study research is often used to understand a process that is not understood
yet, or whose reasons for occurring are not clarified in the literature [
58
]. Thus, case study
strategy was applied to understand co-creation through storytelling in Luton, in a case
of MVOT.
3.1. Luton as a Site for this Research
Luton, which is a large town in Bedfordshire, UK, with a population of ~214,000 peo-
ple, is used as a site for this research. The town has long proven a challenge for the
local municipality and residents due to multiple reputational issues. The town’s negative
reputation has developed from an aggregation of ongoing social, economic and political
problems and numerous events which linked the town’s image to Islamic extremism and
white supremacy retaliations. Fifty percent of the town’s population are coming from Black,
Asian and Minority ethnic backgrounds (BAME). The town has a low economic activity
rate, high unemployment rates and a high proportion of people working in low-skilled
Tour. Hosp. 2022,320
occupations and manufacturing. In the past five years, the local municipality has made
efforts to develop a consistent and attractive Luton brand that is adopted by the wider
community with hopes that it will play a role in changing the local and global perception
about the place. One of the activities undertaken is the creation of MVOT, the campaign
investigated in this study.
3.2. Data Collection
The data presented here are taken from a larger study investigating various types of
co-creation in different branding approaches from Luton. For this study, the researchers
employ a qualitative methodology to analyse the MVOT case study through an iterative-
inductive approach using iterations between interviews and netnographic data.
3.2.1. Interviews
The study carried out four face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with people in
charge of the promotional activities of the town: two experts (e.g., campaigns’ managers)
and two residents (participants in the campaign). The study’s data collection started
with the two interviews with the experts (March-April 2019, while the campaign was still
running in the town) to gather background data and build a foundation about Luton as a
brand and its activities. Then, the researchers alternate between the data from interviews
and netnographic data, ending the data collection with another two interviews conducted
with the residents involved in the campaign (January–February 2020). The participants
were chosen based on non-random, non-probability sampling: i.e., purposive sampling [
59
],
in the sense that the participants were key informants in the campaign. Although there were
7 residents involved in the whole campaign, due to accessibility issues we only interviewed
two. Furthermore, these two were interviewed after the campaign was ended as we wanted
to allow the feedback from the public to have a wider reach in the town.
3.2.2. Netnographic Data
Netnography, or digital ethnography, is essential in understanding the place-related
online content because the progression of the digital world “radically affects the roles
that residents play in place branding and offers a multitude of opportunities for the
integration of existing residents in place branding decision making” [
22
] (p. 22). Social
media, like other online environments, boosts the eagerness for participation in public
discussion. The existing online spaces, like social media, offer residents an opportunity
to openly communicate their opinions and freely strengthen, weaken, complement or
reject information.
Kozinetz proposed analysing online data using netnography for understanding the
“context in which consumers often partake in discussions whose goals include attempts to
inform and influence fellow consumers about products and brand” [
60
] (p. 61). Multiple
sources from the literature highlight the impact of online communication on branding,
because stakeholders can support or contradict the brand, having more credibility than
the brand managers [
26
,
61
]. Therefore, this study uses netnographic data to understand
the co-creation through storytelling. The researchers conducted an online investigation of
the campaign to see how the campaign was being represented on social media and overall
public’s reactions. The flexible design allowed the researchers to investigate the campaign
on the Council’s multiple social media platforms using netnographic data from Facebook,
Instagram and Twitter. Netnographic data collection started after the first interview with
the experts in March 2019 and ended in January 2020, just before the interviews with
the residents. The netnographic data captured a closer representation of the place brand
as perceived by the residents, using comments and posts from the public municipality’s
platforms which were then analysed using NVivo.
Tour. Hosp. 2022,321
3.3. Data Analysis and Ethics
The data analysis followed an iterative cycle of collection–analysis–collection as sug-
gested in contemporary ethnographic studies [
60
]. The data from the first two interviews
were partially analysed to help understand the netnographic data. Then, netnographic
data was also analysed before conducting the last two interviews with the residents so the
researchers could ask the participants for clarifications in the data.
Thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s [
62
] guidelines, was conducted on
all data sets to capture the key findings from the data by decoding and encoding processes.
According to Braun and Clarke, thematic analysis can take multiple forms, offering either a
rich description of the data or a detailed perspective, being inductive or deductive, and hav-
ing semantic or latent themes from a realist or constructionist epistemology [
58
]. This study
adopted an inductive approach to thematic analysis and latent constructionist themes to
analyse the data from the interviews with the council and participants in the campaign and
from Twitter, Facebook and Instagram and gain an insight into the different perspectives
of storytelling. The above process was also followed to analyse the netnographic data.
Residents feedback in form of comments was typed into NVivo and analysed in the same
way as the interview transcripts. However, some screenshots from social media platforms
were also kept and used in the study to maintain the authenticity of the data.
The data collected from the interviews were gathered with full written consent of the
participants, who were only voluntarily involved in the study and appropriate measures
were taken to securely collect, store and analyse the online data. The online data was
collected using screenshots from the public platforms of Luton Council (Luton council’s
Facebook, Instagram and Twitter accounts) in agreement with their platforms’ gatekeeper.
Moreover, the data used is publicly available and not protected by passwords or group
membership in order to access it. Screenshots were taken to keep the data safe, and then all
personal, identifiable data was removed (e.g., names, tags on identifiable pictures without
given consent).
4. Results
4.1. Co-Creation through Storytelling
Storytelling was used to create the brand image and identity of Luton brand through
visual representations of seven personal stories portrayed through videos, posters and
banners shared on social media and printed out and exposed in the town centre. Through
these representations, the aim was for the brand to gain authenticity based on residents’
profiles. Luton was portrayed through seven stories of residents representing different
occupations and also coming from different ethnic groups: one professional boxer, one
youth worker, one footballer, one actress, one cricketer, two people representing a local
non-profit theatre organisation and one artist. The seven chosen residents advocated for
Luton and for their ethnic communities (Figure 1).
Storytelling was embedded as a strategy because in the municipality’s view “people
liked the positive stories, they liked to share positive stories and that creates marketing”
(municipality, B). Using seven residents’ stories, the municipality helped enhance Luton’s
promotion by creating a new narrative thread for the town which portrays the positives,
the diversity and creative people of Luton, and in their view, residents ‘help create a story’
(municipality, A).
Moreover, while some participants believed that the campaign ‘elevated’ who Luto-
nians were, being “a very honest campaign” and “a journey that it was contributed from
both sides” (resident, 1), the wider public vehemently disagreed with participants’ and
council’s statements and tried to boycott the campaign.
Tour. Hosp. 2022,322
Tour.Hosp.2022,3,FORPEERREVIEW8
Figure1.ManyVoicesOneTown—Lutoniansasadvocates(netnographicdatafromLutonCouncil
Instagramaccount).
4.2.PlaceBrandCo‐CreationandCo‐Destruction
AccordingtothemunicipalityMVOTintegratedresidentsintothecampaignasan
acknowledgementoftheirimportanceandanindicationofthedesiretochangetheone‐
waybrandcommunicationandoffercredibilitytothebrandmessages.Thiswasespe‐
ciallyimportantforLutonbecauseintervieweesfromthemunicipalityrealisedthatbefore
thiscampaignhappened,theytendedto“oversellit”and“promotedaLutonthatwasn’t
evenLuton”(municipality,A).Therefore,accordingtothem,oneofthebenefitsofMVOT
wasthattheyrevisedhowtheyrepresentthetowntobuilda“real”representationof
Lutonwiththeresidents’helpby“involvingresidentsfromthestartandtalkingtoresi‐
dents;askingthemwhatLutonmeanstoyou?”(municipality,A).Thus,MVOTemerged
withapotentialtocollaboratewithresidentsandtrytoshapethefaceofLuton,through
thestoriesofresidents.
Thecampaignwas“aboutpromotingthepositivesandeducatingyoungpeople,cel‐
ebratingtheirdifferences”(municipality,A)anditwasmainlycreatedwiththeaimof
diminishingextremistideologiesandmisrepresentationsofparticularcultures.Thecam‐
paignstartedconversationsondiversityandthedifferentcommunitiesinLuton.How‐
ever,thecampaignwasnotentirelywelcomedduetonumerousissues,mostofwhich
werepredominantlyobservedonline,andalthoughitintendedtoenhancethecommunity
spirit,itdidnotalwaysachieveitsaim.Online,theconversationstookanunexpected
turn.Forexample,oneparticipantemphasisedthatcommunitytensionsinMVOTcame
outonline,andpeopleattackedherparticipation,trollingheronsocialmedia:“theybasi‐
callytriedtosaythatIwasayoungPakistaniwomanwhohadnoculturalvalues”(resi‐
dent,1).Moreover,thefeedbackfromInstagramsuggestedthatthepublicassumedthat
themaincharacterswerepaidtotellthosestories.
Thecampaignhadnumerouspositiveoutcomesincludinghelpingthemunicipality
betterunderstandthetownandpavedthewayforcollaborationswiththeresidents.It
wasalsobeneficialfortheresidentswhoparticipatedinthecampaignwiththestories.As
discussedbyChoietal.[21]participationledtoemotionalvaluecreationforthemembers
involvedinthesensethattheyfeltpositiveemotionstowardstheirtownasaresultof
Figure 1.
Many Voices One Town—Lutonians as advocates (netnographic data from Luton Council
Instagram account).
4.2. Place Brand Co-Creation and Co-Destruction
According to the municipality MVOT integrated residents into the campaign as an
acknowledgement of their importance and an indication of the desire to change the one-way
brand communication and offer credibility to the brand messages. This was especially
important for Luton because interviewees from the municipality realised that before this
campaign happened, they tended to “oversell it” and “promoted a Luton that wasn’t even
Luton” (municipality, A). Therefore, according to them, one of the benefits of MVOT was
that they revised how they represent the town to build a “real” representation of Luton
with the residents’ help by “involving residents from the start and talking to residents;
asking them what Luton means to you?” (municipality, A). Thus, MVOT emerged with
a potential to collaborate with residents and try to shape the face of Luton, through the
stories of residents.
The campaign was “about promoting the positives and educating young people,
celebrating their differences” (municipality, A) and it was mainly created with the aim
of diminishing extremist ideologies and misrepresentations of particular cultures. The
campaign started conversations on diversity and the different communities in Luton.
However, the campaign was not entirely welcomed due to numerous issues, most of which
were predominantly observed online, and although it intended to enhance the community
spirit, it did not always achieve its aim. Online, the conversations took an unexpected turn.
For example, one participant emphasised that community tensions in MVOT came out
online, and people attacked her participation, trolling her on social media: “they basically
tried to say that I was a young Pakistani woman who had no cultural values” (resident, 1).
Moreover, the feedback from Instagram suggested that the public assumed that the main
characters were paid to tell those stories.
The campaign had numerous positive outcomes including helping the municipality
better understand the town and paved the way for collaborations with the residents. It
was also beneficial for the residents who participated in the campaign with the stories.
As discussed by Choi et al. [
21
] participation led to emotional value creation for the
members involved in the sense that they felt positive emotions towards their town as a
Tour. Hosp. 2022,323
result of their participation as well as relational value as they felt more connected to the
municipality. For example, an MVOT participant explained that “after being involved in
the campaign, it did give me the platform that I needed to network with people in the
industry”, emphasising that the events made her confident that “career-wise I could elevate
in this town” (resident, 1).
However, several issues were identified in place representation in MVOT which led to
the co-destruction of the brand. Although through this campaign the municipality wanted
to create a positive legacy presenting multicultural residents and showing that different
backgrounds, cultures and religions are welcomed in Luton, the campaign became a target
for the public’s frustrations and the municipality’s role in moderating the seven stories
which portrayed the town, was not welcomed by the public online. The public accused the
municipality of supporting only artists who bring revenue into the town, being unfair with
the recruitment process and of using stories which are scripted or do not represent Luton.
During the interviews, the municipality fully acknowledged the importance of col-
laboration with the stakeholders in the town, especially with the residents, but in practice
the co-creation processes were taking an unwanted direction towards emphasising the
negative aspects of Luton due to three main causes.
4.2.1. Selective Recruitment of the Storytellers
The campaign was manipulated by the municipality who acted as moderator by
choosing the residents and deciding how they would represent Luton in the videos, being in
charge of exposing the place’s USPs. The interviewees from the municipality told us that the
residents “were filtered and screened down (
. . .
) final decisions were made on the actual
key people who will carry the message in the way we wanted to do” (municipality, B). The
storytellers in this case were chosen strategically, so that they could use residents’ personal
“networks to get the message out” and benefit from organic engagement (municipality, A).
However, due to the small budget, the campaign allowed a reduced number of residents
to become the face of the brand because the municipality “only had budget to tell seven
stories” (municipality, B). This led to negative reactions such as “this isn’t our town”
(municipality, B) and online controversies in which people complained that the campaign
does not represent “real Lutonians”, ironically asking “how much are they being paid to
say that?”, “what are these duty lies”, “I’ll share my stories with them, see whether they
post that on Insta” (netnographic—Instagram comments). Most of MVOT oppositions were
observed online where people thought that the chosen residents did not represent Luton,
some aggressively posting negative messages (Figure 2). Some residents even boycotted
the campaign by using the hashtag #ManyVoicesOneTown with a negative meaning and
blaming Luton Council for different issues.
In the public’s view, MVOT offered unequal chances of participation because the
municipality chose seven residents to represent the brand without being fully transparent
about how and why they were selected. MVOT participants emphasised that not everyone
had the opportunity to be selected because they were “approached through work” (resident,
1). However, the municipality offered a contradictory story. As a representative of the
municipality stated in their interview: “there was a press and online invitation for people
who wanted to be a subject in the films (
. . .
) for everyone in the town” (municipality,
B) be part in MVOT. These findings were not confirmed in the residents’ interviews or
ethnographic data. Imposed control and unequal chances for participation created distance
between the municipality and residents and there was “a long way to go as far as bridging
the gap between the local council and the people” (resident, 2).
Tour. Hosp. 2022,324
Tour.Hosp.2022,3,FORPEERREVIEW10
representingLutonortheirparticularcultures.However,eventhemunicipalityacknowl‐
edgedthatduetosocial,religiousandculturalnorms,andthestigmaandstereotypes
attachedtosomeculturesandfaiths,theystruggledtoattractdiversepeoplefromspecific
culturalbackgrounds,andthismadeitimpossibleforMVOTtorecruit“sociallyconserva‐
tiverepresentatives”(municipality,B).Municipalitymembersweredisappointedthat
theydidnotcapturea“moresociallyconservativeMuslimidentity”inthefilms.They
mentionedthattheyinitially“hadtwocandidates(…)wearinghijab(…)but(…)acom‐
binationoffactors(…)causethemtoredraw”(municipality,B).
Figure2.ManyVoicesOneTownnegativityexpressedincomments(netnographicdatafromLuton
CouncilFacebookaccount).
Figure 2.
Many Voices One Town negativity expressed in comments (netnographic data from Luton
Council Facebook account).
Nevertheless, this mistrust could have also emerged from a lack of communication. It
is possible that the municipality did not know how to inform people about decisions during
the campaign, thus it raised tensions. Selective recruitment might have been an outcome
of a broken communication but also misinterpretation of the municipality’s actions. For
Tour. Hosp. 2022,325
example, online the public complained that the chosen representatives are not representing
Luton or their particular cultures. However, even the municipality acknowledged that
due to social, religious and cultural norms, and the stigma and stereotypes attached to
some cultures and faiths, they struggled to attract diverse people from specific cultural
backgrounds, and this made it impossible for MVOT to recruit “socially conservative
representatives” (municipality, B). Municipality members were disappointed that they did
not capture a “more socially conservative Muslim identity” in the films. They mentioned
that they initially “had two candidates (
. . .
) wearing hijab (
. . .
) but (
. . .
) a combination
of factors ( . .. ) cause them to redraw” (municipality, B).
4.2.2. Involvement of Unwanted Parties from Outside of Luton to Take Decisions for Luton
In the municipality’s view, outsiders were brought in for expertise and they were ‘a
way forward for Luton’ (municipality, B). The campaign was initially created with the help
of a London advertising agency which ‘went independent outside of the council’s control’
(municipality, B) and came up with the campaign settings, being decisive about ‘the basic
parameters for the campaign’ (municipality, B). The stakeholders in the town vehemently
disagreed with this approach because they believed that by hiring outsiders, the authorities
showed lack of respect and trust in the locals. Moreover, hiring outside ‘experts’ implied the
local resources (e.g., the university, local creatives and creative agencies) were inadequate,
in contradiction to those Lutonians who had confidence in them.
4.2.3. Communication Issues
It seems that communication was a problem for this campaign on more than one
occasion; the lack of transparency in the recruitment—as discussed above, but also in the
way they presented the campaign to the public, and the associations with the previous
initiatives from the town. When asked about MVOT, a representative of the municipality
said: ‘the campaign is not just about the films (
. . .
) we’ve commissioned a number of
projects and interventions to underpin the messages of MVOT’ through ‘four community
projects (
. . .
) arts initiatives (
. . .
) training for youth leaders (
. . .
) campaigning on social
change’ because they ‘wanted to ensure (
. . .
) there was a reality of social development’
(municipality, B). However, when the MVOT residents were asked about these initiatives
and workshops, they said: ‘I wasn’t even aware of that’ (resident, 1), and it seemed that
most of these initiatives were unknown for the wider public.
Moreover, the associations between MVOT and the previous initiative (Luton in
Harmony) also created controversy. Although MVOT was clearly a separate campaign, it
was still associated with the fight against extremism, and this led to oppositions between
the council, the Muslim community and residents. The campaign was not well-received by
some community leaders who addressed a letter of complaint to the municipality because
they were concerned about the counter-terrorism associations and they ‘wrote to the chief
executive saying: ‘we are very disappointed that once again, Luton’s young people are
being framed though the lenses of extremism’ (municipality, B).
5. Discussion
As shown in our findings, the meaning created through MVOT was susceptible to
people’s interpretation and their identification with the campaign content, bringing both
positive and negative brand associations. For example, some people disregarded the
stories because they thought that they do not represent Luton, while others identified
with the cultural backgrounds presented. While storytelling is suggested as a strategy to
bridge stakeholders’ stories by capturing relevant narratives between different groups of
stakeholders [
40
], in MVOT this strategy did not work because the stories did not manage
to capture a relevant representation of Luton for the majority of the public. It has been
reported in other studies as well [
63
,
64
] that often such initiatives lead to detachment from
the place instead of the desired attachment. Reasons for this can be the cynical attitudes
towards involvement and disapproval of local government actions [63].
Tour. Hosp. 2022,326
Identification with the campaign content was problematic even when the intended
message was positive and quite close to the general place perception: Luton as a diverse
place with young advocates. Although the general message of MVOT was similar to the
residents’ experience, the way in which the campaign was designed, including unfair
participant selection and the specific stories chosen, made it harder for other residents to
identify with the campaign content and created tensions. We could argue that some of the
chosen residents in MVOT may have played a role in making it harder for the residents
to identify with the story, as Lutonians accused them of not being honest or having been
paid to give positive messages. The public’s anger may have also come from the fact that
some participants were not necessarily involved for the benefit of Luton but to enhance
their profiles as artists. This finding contrasts with Campelo et al. [
38
] and Casais and
Monteiro [
7
] who argued that residents’ place attachment motivates participation, as some
MVOT participants proved to be motivated by intrinsic benefits of gaining recognition
rather than their place attachment.
However, most of the issues created by this campaign raised tensions and negative
brand meaning because of the discrepancies in communication (e.g., what the municipality
said vs. residents in MVOT), but also between each party’s perceptions of the town.
Numerous sources showed a mismatch between how the municipality presented the
campaign and what the participants experienced. Although they both had similar aims,
the municipality discussed wider content and initiatives as part of the MVOT and wanted
to work with the residents to promote a prosperous town for potential investors and
businesses, and the participants wanted to focus on local benefits and were unaware of
these activities. This resonates with the idea that most place initiatives are created for
outsiders rather than insiders [
65
] and the dichotomy of meanings created did not help
the brand. Contrasting views led to image incongruencies [
66
] which added to Luton’s
negative reputation.
Although the municipality wanted to create a positive legacy through this campaign,
presenting multicultural residents and showing how different backgrounds, cultures and
religions are welcomed in Luton, for some residents the actual legacy left behind was
negative. These residents felt that the initiators of MVOT, as well as the people who de-
signed and participated in the campaign, had been used for other purposes. That resonates
with the findings of the insightful study of the French region of Auvergne by Martin and
Capelli [
64
] who found that residents felt that more powerful, institutional stakeholders
were commodifying place identity and the process of place branding for their own political
gains. This was also proven to be the case in the study of Northamptonshire [
53
]. Con-
sidering the online comments, the campaign became a target for residents’ frustrations.
These issues suggest that the process and outcomes could have been improved if there
was a two-way communication between residents and municipality and the residents had
received more active roles.
Another factor creating conflicts in Luton, but not particularly investigated in the
branding literature, is the people involved in such approaches. Lutonians’ major opposi-
tions derived from the fact that the municipality did not utilise local marketers, designers
and resources to build the campaign, and instead hired outsiders. In Luton, disputations
were also raised by the residents who felt that by hiring an external agency, important
tasks were given to ‘outsiders’ and this proved the municipality’s mistrust of the local
organisations and people. Nevertheless, this mistrust could have also emerged from a lack
of communication. It is possible that the municipality did not know how to inform people
about decisions during the campaign, hence it raised tensions.
6. Conclusions: Implications for Place Brand Co-Creation through Storytelling
The findings of our study help us make conclusions about co-creation through story-
telling and the necessary processes and pre-conditions that it needs to meet. In general
terms, as suggested by Hudak [
49
], for storytelling to be effective as a place brand co-
creation mechanism, it needs to be understood as “more than just telling a story” (p. 101)
Tour. Hosp. 2022,327
and rather as a project that “revitalises place brands through continual renegotiation and
retelling of their meanings” (p. 101). More specifically, we propose that there are four major
considerations that affect the result of storytelling-based place branding projects:
a.
The stories: As we saw in MVOT, the stories chosen to be told were not seen as ap-
propriate by many residents and they were not considered relevant. While arguably
no story can become well received by all, it is important to carefully plan the stories
that will be told through the project and to ensure that their reception is tested before
the project’s implementation. The challenge lies in identifying and shaping stories
that are balanced between being perceived as authentic and having the potential to
appeal to a wide basis of ‘listeners’.
b.
The storytellers: The same inconsistency was noted in MVOT for the chosen story-
tellers, whose motivations and truthfulness were doubted by many. In this sense,
the storytellers who will share their personal stories as part of the project need to
be chosen based on specific and clear criteria through a transparent and consistent
process of selection.
c.
The framing and context of the stories: The stories told as part of MVOT were not
judged and perceived solely as individual stories but were framed by the campaign’s
design and execution and they became part of the project’s context. For instance,
as discussed in the findings, the fact that outsiders had designed the whole project
negatively affected the way in which the stories were perceived and evaluated. As
Hudak [
49
] convincingly argues, it is essential to consider and contextualise how
each story interweaves with wider narratives of the community and how the stories
can demonstrate the role that residents play in the constant re-creation of the meaning
of the place brand as well as its communication internally and externally.
d.
The communication and feedback mechanisms around the project: Finally, the commu-
nication issues that marked MVOT were another crucial factor. In fact, the Council
did attempt to contextualise the stories, as noted in the previous point, through
wider engagement, but people were not aware of this as it had not been commu-
nicated effectively. It is therefore essential to integrate in storytelling projects (and,
arguably, in all place branding projects) communications and feedback mechanisms
that will allow effective communication between the initiators and the audiences of
the campaign.
These propositions are aligned with the participatory turn in place branding, see,
e.g., in [
15
], and can help with reinforcing the significant role that the residents play, see,
e.g., in [
7
,
9
,
35
]. It is, of course, important to refine and substantiate these propositions
through further research that can focus on the clarification of several aspects of storytelling-
based place branding both theoretically and in practice. For instance, it will be necessary
to examine the benefits, risks and preconditions of storytelling in place branding and
destination branding projects to determine their commonalities and differences. Further
examining social media as a field of co-creation through storytelling, see, e.g., in [
26
,
29
], is
also a very important area of research. Identifying a framework that can guide practical
implementation of storytelling for place brand co-creation is also a necessity. Hudak’s [
49
]
proposition to design digital storytelling projects based on the three stages of discussion,
emplotment and support would be a very appropriate starting point. If this framework
had been followed in Luton, then it is reasonable to expect that MVOT would have been a
more effective campaign.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualisation, I.S.S. and M.K.; methodology, I.S.S. and C.S.; software,
analysis and investigation, I.S.S.; writing—original draft preparation, I.S.S. and M.K.; writing—review
M.K., C.S. and M.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Tour. Hosp. 2022,328
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Thelander, A.; Säwe, F. The challenge of internal stakeholder support for co-creational branding strategy. Public Relat. Inq.
2015
,4,
323–341. [CrossRef]
2.
Voorberg, W.H.; Bekkers, V.J.J.M.; Tummers, L.G. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social
innovation journey. Public Manag. Rev. 2015,17, 1333–1357. [CrossRef]
3.
Zouganeli, S.; Trihas, N.; Antonaki, M.; Kladou, S. Aspects of Sustainability in the Destination Branding Process: A Bottom-up
Approach. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. Sustain. Tour. Manag. Mark. 2012,21, 739–757. [CrossRef]
4. Freire, J.R. ‘Local People’ a critical dimension for place brands. J. Brand Manag. 2009,16, 420–438. [CrossRef]
5.
El Banna, A.; Stoica, I.S. From participation to transformation: The multiple roles of residents in the place brand creation process.
In Marketing Countries, Places and Place-associated Brands, 1st ed.; Papadopoulos, N., Cleveland, M., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing:
Cheltenham, UK, 2021; pp. 97–113.
6.
Kangjuan, L.; Mosoni, G.; Wang, M.; Zheng, X.; Sun, Y. The Image of the 2010 World Expo: Residents’ Perspective. Eng. Econ.
2017,28, 207–214.
7.
Casais, B.; Monteiro, P. Residents’ involvement in city brand co-creation and their perceptions of city brand identity: A case study
in Porto. Place Branding Public Dipl. 2019,15, 229–237. [CrossRef]
8.
Lindstedt, J. A deliberately emergent strategy—A key to successful city branding. J. Place Manag. Dev.
2015
,8, 90–102. [CrossRef]
9.
Uchinaka, S.; Yoganathan, V.; Osburg, V. Classifying residents’ roles as online place-ambassadors. Tour. Manag.
2019
,71, 137–150.
[CrossRef]
10.
Chen, N.C.; Segota, T. Residents attitudes, place attachment and destination branding: A research framework. Tour. Hosp. Manag.
2015,21, 145–158. [CrossRef]
11.
Jeuring, J.H.G.; Haartsen, T. Destination Branding by residents: The role of perceived responsibility in positive and negative
word-of-mouth. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2017,14, 240–259. [CrossRef]
12.
Gajdošík, T.; Gajdošíková, Z.; Stražanová, R. Residents’ Perception of Sustainable Tourism Destination Development—A
Destination Governance Issue. Glob. Bus. Financ. Rev. 2018,23, 24–35. [CrossRef]
13.
Insch, A.; Walters, T. Challenging assumptions about residents’ engagement with place branding. Place Branding Public Dipl.
2018
,
14, 152–162. [CrossRef]
14.
Hatch, M.J.; Schultz, M. Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications for brand governance. J. Brand Manag.
2010
,17,
590–604. [CrossRef]
15.
Kavaratzis, M.; Kalandides, A. Rethinking the place brand: The interactive formation of place brands and the role of participatory
place branding. Environ. Plan. A 2015,47, 1368–1382. [CrossRef]
16.
Vallaster, C.; von Wallpach, S.; Zenker, S. The interplay between urban policies and grassroots city brand co-creation and
co-destruction during the refugee crisis: Insights from the city brand Munich (Germany). Cities 2018,80, 53–60. [CrossRef]
17.
Cassinger, C.; Thelander, Å. Spaces of identity in the city: Embracing the contradictions. In Inclusive Place Branding: Critical
Perspectives on Theory and Practice, 1st ed.; Kavaratzis, M., Giovanardi, M., Lichrou, M., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2018; pp.
70–81.
18.
Luton Borough Council Many Voices, One Town. Available online: https://m.luton.gov.uk/Page/Show/Community_and_
living/Pages/Many-Voices-One-Town.aspx?redirectToMobile=True (accessed on 14 June 2019).
19. Loeffler, E. A future research agenda for co-production: Overview paper. Swindon Local Authorities Res. Counc. Initiat. 2009.
20.
Kavaratzis, M.; Hatch, M.J. The elusive destination brand and the ATLAS wheel of place brand management J.Travel Res.
2021
,
60, 3–15. [CrossRef]
21.
Choi, L.; Lawry, C.A.; Kim, M. Contextualizing customer organizational citizenship behaviors: The changing nature of value
cocreation and customer satisfaction across service settings. Psychol. Mark. 2019,36, 455–472. [CrossRef]
22.
Braun, E.; Kavaratzis, M.; Zenker, S. My city-My brand: The different roles of residents in place branding. J. Place Manag. Dev.
2013,6, 18–28. [CrossRef]
23.
Here´zniak, M. Place Branding and Citizen Involvement: Participatory Approach to Building and Managing City Brands. Int.
Stud. 2018,19, 129–141. [CrossRef]
24. Aitken, R.; Campelo, A. The four Rs of place branding. J. Mark. Manag. 2011,27, 913–933. [CrossRef]
25. Urry, J. Mobility and proximity. Sociology 2002,36, 255–274. [CrossRef]
26.
Lund, N.F.; Cohen, S.A.; Scarles, C. The power of social media storytelling in destination branding. J. Destin. Mark. Manag.
2018
,
8, 271–280. [CrossRef]
27. Fournier, S.; Avery, J. The uninvited brand. Bus. Horiz. 2011,21, 193–207. [CrossRef]
28.
Skinner, H. Who really creates the place brand? Considering the role of user generated content in creating and communicating a
place identity. Commun. Soc. 2018,31, 9–25. [CrossRef]
29.
Mariani, M.M.; Di Felice, M.; Mura, M. Facebook as a destination marketing tool: Evidence from Italian regional Destination
Management Organizations. Tour. Manag. 2016,54, 321–343. [CrossRef]
Tour. Hosp. 2022,329
30. Ferrer-Rosell, B.; Marine-Roig, E. Projected versus Perceived Destination Image. Tour. Anal. 2020,25, 227–237. [CrossRef]
31. Lew, A.A. Tourism planning and place making: Place-making or placemaking? Tour. Geogr. 2017,19, 448–466. [CrossRef]
32.
Choo, H.; Park, S.; Petrick, J.F. The Influence of the Resident’s Identification with a Tourism Destination Brand on Their Behavior.
J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2011,20, 198–216. [CrossRef]
33.
Kemp, E.; Williams, K.H.; Bordelon, B.M. The impact of marketing on internal stakeholders in destination branding: The case of a
musical city. J. Vacat. Mark. 2012,18, 121–133. [CrossRef]
34.
Ram, Y.; Bjork, P.; Weidenfeld, A. Authenticity and place attachment of major visitor attractions. Tour. Manag.
2016
,52, 110–122.
[CrossRef]
35.
Zenker, S.; Rütter, N. Is satisfaction the key? The role of citizen satisfaction, place attachment and place brand attitude on positive
citizenship behavior. Cities 2014,38, 11–17. [CrossRef]
36.
Peighambari, K.; Sattari, S.; Foster, T.; Wallström, Å. Two tales of one city: Image versus identity. Place Branding Public Dipl.
2016
,
12, 314–328. [CrossRef]
37.
Insch, A. Managing residents’ satisfaction with city life: Application of Importance-Satisfaction analysis. J. Town City Manag.
2010,1, 164–174.
38.
Campelo, A.; Aitken, R.; Thyne, M.; Gnoth, J. Sense of place: The importance for destination branding. J. Travel Res.
2014
,53,
154–166. [CrossRef]
39.
Laurence, D. Do ads that tell a story always perform better? The role of character identification and character type in storytelling
ads. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2018,35, 289–304.
40.
Kotsi, F.; Balakrishnan, M.S.; Michael, I.; Ramsoy, T.Z. Place branding: Aligning multiple stakeholder perception of visual and
auditory communication elements. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018,7, 112–130. [CrossRef]
41.
Warren, G.; Dinnie, K. Cultural intermediaries in place branding: Who are they and how do they construct legitimacy for their
work and for themselves? Tour. Manag. 2018,66, 302–314. [CrossRef]
42.
Pera, R. Empowering the new traveller: Storytelling as a co-creative behaviour in tourism. Curr. Issues Tour.
2014
,20, 331–338.
[CrossRef]
43.
Youssef, K.B.; Leight, T.; Marongiu, L. Storytelling in the context of destination marketing: An analysis of conceptualisations and
impact measurement. J. Strateg. Mark. 2018,27, 696–713. [CrossRef]
44. Mossberg, L. Extraordinary Experiences through Storytelling. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2008,8, 195–210. [CrossRef]
45.
Hamby, A.; Daniloski, K.; Brinberg, D. How consumer reviews persuade through narratives. J. Bus. Res.
2015
,68, 1242–1250.
[CrossRef]
46.
Hamby, A.; Brinberg, D. Happily ever after: How editing valence influences narrative persuasion in cautionary stories. J. Advert.
2016,45, 498–508. [CrossRef]
47.
Schembri, S.; Latimer, L. Online brand communities: Constructing and co-constructing brand culture. J. Mark. Manag.
2016
,32,
628–651. [CrossRef]
48.
Baumgarth, C. “Living the Brand”: Brand Orientation in the business-to-business sector. Eur. J. Mark.
2010
,44, 653–671. [CrossRef]
49.
Hudak, K.C. Resident stories and digital storytelling for participatory place branding. Place Branding Public Dipl.
2019
,15, 97–108.
[CrossRef]
50.
Gabriel, Y. Narratives and Stories in Organisational Life. In The Handbook of Narrative Analysis; De Fina, A., Georgakopoulou, A.,
Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: London, UK, 2015.
51. Warnaby, G. Towards a Service-dominant Place Marketing Logic. Mark. Theory 2009,9, 403–423. [CrossRef]
52.
Echeverri, P.; Skålén, P. Co-creation and Co-destruction: A practice Theory Based Study of Interactive Value Formation. Mark.
Theory 2011,11, 351–373. [CrossRef]
53.
Bisani, S. Exploring Stakeholder Participation and Representations in Region Branding. Unpublished. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Northampton, Northampton, UK, 2021.
54.
Zenker, S.; Braun, E.; Peterson, S. Branding the destination versus the place: The effects of brand complexity and identification for
residents and visitors. Tour. Manag. 2017,58, 15–27. [CrossRef]
55. Baxter, J.; Kerr, G.M.; Clarke, R.J. Brand orientation and the voices from within. J. Mark. Manag. 2013,29, 1079–1098. [CrossRef]
56.
Shafranskaya, I.; Potapov, D. An empirical study of consumer-based city brand equity from signalling theory perspective. Place
Branding Public Dipl. 2014,10, 117–131. [CrossRef]
57. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2014.
58. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th ed.; Sage: Los Angeles, USA, 2018.
59. Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 2nd ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2003.
60.
Kozinetz, R.V. The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. J. Mark. Res.
2002
,
39, 61–72. [CrossRef]
61.
Molina, A.; Fernández, A.C.; Gómez, M.; Aranda, E. Differences in the city branding of European capitals based on online vs.
offline sources of information. Tour. Manag. 2017,58, 28–39. [CrossRef]
62. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using Thematic Analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006,3, 77–101. [CrossRef]
63. Insch, A.; Stuart, M. Understanding resident city brand disengagement. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2015,8, 172–186. [CrossRef]
64.
Martin, E.; Capelli, S. Region brand legitimacy: Towards a participatory approach involving residents of a place. Public Manag.
Rev. 2017,19, 820–844. [CrossRef]
Tour. Hosp. 2022,330
65.
Lichrou, M.; Kavaratzis, M.; Giovanardi, M. Introduction. In Inclusive Place Branding: Critical Perspectives on Theory and Practice, 1st
ed.; Kavaratzis, M., Giovanardi, M., Lichrou, M., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2018; pp. 1–10.
66.
Marine-Roig, E.; Ferrer-Rosell, B. Measuring the gap between projected and perceived destination images of Catalonia using
compositional analysis. Tour. Manag. 2018,68, 236–249. [CrossRef]
Content uploaded by Ioana S. Stoica
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ioana S. Stoica on Dec 30, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
