Places can be seen as products (Blakely and Green Leigh, 2012). They are produced, packaged and sold to consumers. The better the product and sell job, the more successful the product will be. Therefore, places with strong brands will likely see greater attention and economic benefit (Anholt, 2006). While the place-as-product analogy provides a useful filter through which to understand a place-brand approach, there remain fundamental differences in the implementation of brand theory in the place environment. These include, among others, the role of government organizations, the difficulty in defining the entity to be branded (city, region, or country), the challenges of aligning internal stakeholders (residents, business owners, frontline workers), and the difficulty of sustaining brand consistency and resources over time in the face of competing societal, as opposed to corporate, interests (Allen, 2007; Kavaratzis, 2009).
42
To reconcile these issue place brands can viewed as being divided into two broad categories: simple and advanced (see Anholt, 2005b). Anholt (2005b, p.117) defines the simple understanding of place branding as referring to a “designed visual identity — name, logo, slogan, corporate livery. It is the way in which the identity of the company, product or service is dressed, and thus recognized.” Within the content and style of the visual identity there is an indication of the nature or intentions of product. Through this visual identity, images representing a locale are a simplification of a large number of associations and pieces of information connected with a place, framing large amounts of information about a place into a small set of manageable ideas (Florek et al, 2008; Kim, 2010). As Ashworth and Kavaratzis (2009, p. 521) describe, “cities all over the world use several conduits to promote themselves to relevant audiences such as investors, visitors and residents and in their efforts they commonly include striking logos and captivating slogans that feature in welcoming websites and advertising campaigns in national and international media.”
This approach is very much drawn from the product marketing domain, where strong associations are made between a company’s goods or services and a logo (Hanna and Rowley, 2008; Low and Ronald, 1994). However, there are limitations to the simple branding approach, as it does not have the ability convey a large number of ideas, and can only represent a small portion of the place management that is occurring.
The visual identity, therefore, while an important part of the branding process is not the only element (Ashworth and Kavaratzis, 2009). Anholt (2005b) identifies the more complex advanced branding to expand on what constitutes a brand. According to Anholt (2005b, p. 117):
43
“The advanced definition of branding includes the simple definition but goes on to cover a wide area of corporate strategy, consumer and stakeholder motivation and behaviour, internal and external communications, ethics and purpose. Companies which espouse this understanding of branding use it to navigate through the complex web of relationships between the personality of the
company, product or service – the brand itself – and the people who produce and deliver it, as well as the people who consume it or otherwise come into contact with it.”
Anholt (2005b) and Kim (2010) suggest that through this advanced understanding of a place brand there is the implication that the functional or physical attributes of places become less relevant, and instead, the intangible or brand-related qualities become
paramount. Allen (2007) and Giovanardi (2012), however, suggest that a balance needs to be struck between representationalism and functionalism in the dimensions of place branding. Table 2.2 outlines the hard and soft elements that can be leveraged in the development of a place brand.
44
Table 2.2: Hard and Soft Factors Associated With Place Branding
Hard Factors Soft Factors
Economic stability
Productivity
Costs
Property availability and accessibility
Communication infrastructure
Strategic location
Incentive schemes and programmes
Transportation Infrastructure
Available Labour Force and Labour Force Skill
Proximity to universities Proximity to research establishments Municipal Infrastructure (water/sewer) Sense of Place Quality of Life Culture Reputation Personnel Local Government/Management
Flexibility and dynamism
Professionalism in contact with the market
State government promotion
Chamber of Commerce/Local Business Association support
Regional image
(Sources: Allen, 2007; Eickelpasch et al, 2007; Giovanardi, 2012; Kotler et al, 1999; Taha, 2013)
An important component of the advanced place brand approach is the integration of corporate brand theory. The corporate approach involves concepts such as corporate image, corporate identity and corporate communications into the branding process (Kavaratzis, 2009). In an attempt to define the corporate brand, Knox and Bickerton (2003, p. 1013) state that: “a corporate brand is the visual, verbal and behavioural expression of an organisation’s unique business model.” The brand is expressed through the company’s mission, core values, beliefs, communication, culture and overall design (Simoes and Dibb, 2001). The goal of branding as it has evolved during the last 30 years has been to identify value propositions that increase the equity of the basic product or service, enhancing brand preference and loyalty (Keller, 2000; Knox and Bickerton,
45
2003). Balmer and Greyer (2002, p. 76) note that “corporate brands are fundamentally different from product brands in terms of disciplinary scope and management, they have a multi-stakeholder rather than customer orientation and the traditional marketing
framework is inadequate and requires a radical reappraisal.” In many ways, this approach suggests similarity between corporate and place branding. Allen (2007), Hankinson (2007), Kavaratzis and Ashworth (2008), Trueman et al (2004) have identified several areas of similarity: both have multidisciplinary roots; both address multiple groups of stakeholders; both have a high level of intangibility and complexity; both need to take into account social responsibility; both deal with multiple identities and both need a long- term development. In particular, stakeholder alignment is an important factor in a brand creating positive value, awareness, and loyalty (Therkelsen and Halkier, 2008; Trueman
et al, 2004). Allen (2007), however, suggests that the place brand remains a much more
complicated proposition, and therefore cannot be fully explained by corporate branding principles. Table 2.3 outlines differences between the two. As a result, Anholt’s (2005) advanced approach provides the most encompassing definition of a place brand.
46
Table 2.3: Differences between Place Brands and Corporate Brands
Place Brands Corporate Brands Multiple, possibly unrelated
components
Fragmented stakeholder relationships
Higher organizational complexity, potential for a greater number of stakeholders
Potential for public input
Experiential
Collective orientation
Sub-brand inequality and rivalry
Public Initiative or Public/private partnerships
Explicit local government role
Product attributes subject to seasonality
Inflexibility of product offering
Single component with a focused message
Cohesive stakeholder relationships
Lower organizational complexity, fewer stakeholders
No public input
Individual orientation
Sub-brand coherence
Private enterprise
Lack of overt government role
Product attributes consistent
Flexibility of product offering
The final issue needing addressing is how the visual identity coalesce with the corporate elements and the hard and soft brand dimensions of the advanced brand. Although the simple brand is contained within the advanced, the two have to be in alignment (Keller, 2000; Knox and Bickerton, 2003), or else the identity on which the brand stands will not be strong (Balmer and Soenen, 1999; Fan, 2008; Stock, 2009). Ultimately, the simple brands need to be a strong visual representation of all the values and ideals locked up in the advanced brand. As Anholt (2001, p. 128) argues,
“The true art of branding is distillation: the art of extracting the concentrated essence of something complex, so that its complexity can always be extracted back out of the distillate, but it remains portable and easily memorable. The distillate, rather than actually attempting to contain all the detail of the [place] in question, is simply the common thread, the genetic constant, which underlies the basic commonality between the different parts of the brand.”
47
The simple brand, therefore, can be seen as a signpost for the larger meaning of the brand. Indeed, a place should not attempt to pack all meaning into a single logo or slogan, but be content with a sign which can represent, and later accurately call back to, the whole experience, once it is more familiar to the consumer. As Anholt (2009, p. 92) describes, “one has to have the wisdom and patience to accept that this sign will not be wholly meaningful to the consumer at the start, but it is a vessel which will become more and more replete with meaning as meaning is absorbed.”