putting city branding

2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management Vol. 19, 4, 257267

www.palgrave-journals.com/bm/

Correspondence: Dr Erik Braun Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics, Room H12-23, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

an offi cial branding strategy; the number of cities utilizing branding in some capacity has been growing steadily ( Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2005 ). Nonetheless, many cities are struggling to effectively apply city branding: for example, there is confusion about its concepts, application, anticipated effects, and the political and organizational

INTRODUCTION A growing number of cities in Europe have discovered the value of branding. Indeed, prime locations such as London, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Berlin all claim to have a city branding strategy. Of course, these names represent only a small selection of European cities that have adopted

Original Article

Putting city branding into practice Received (in revised form): 9 th January 2011

Erik Braun is senior researcher and lecturer in urban economics and city marketing at the Erasmus School of Economics of Erasmus University Rotterdam. His primary research interests are the application of marketing and branding concepts by cities and regions, the governance of place marketing and branding, the role of place brand perceptions and place brand management. His teaching subjects are urban and regional economics, city marketing and city branding.

ABSTRACT City branding has joined the vocabulary of a growing number of politicians and city offi cials across Europe. While most academic research in this fi eld has focused on the concept of city branding itself, the subject of this article is the implementation of city branding. In this conceptual paper it is argued that the governance setting in which city branding takes place, as well as the impact of specifi c choices made in the branding process, greatly affect the implementation of city branding. This research identifi es eight factors: the fi rst four are governance factors concerning the fi t of city branding with the city s wider policy framework; the last four factors are intrinsically linked to the concept and application of branding itself. The fi rst four factors identifi ed are especially important for bolstering the signifi cance of city branding in relation to the city s traditional policies: they could help marketing professionals avoid mistakes previously made with the introduction of city marketing. At the same time, the strategic branding choices of city marketers could have a direct impact on the political decision-making process as well. Hence, city branding requires the combination of marketing excellence with the sensitivity of operating in a political environment. Journal of Brand Management (2012) 19, 257 267. doi: 10.1057/bm.2011.55 ; published online 14 October 2011

Keywords: city branding ; place branding ; branding ; place marketing ; city marketing ; governance ; cities

Braun


the main argument for the use of marketing and branding by cities is the same: the com-petition among cities for tourists, businesses, residents and other target groups (for example, Van den Berg and Braun, 1999 ; Medway and Warnaby, 2008 ; Zenker, 2009 ).

It is important to note that city branding is part of the wider place branding family . Many observers have pointed out that place marketing and place branding could involve different types of places and different spatial scales (see for example: Ashworth and Voogd, 1990 ; Kotler et al , 1999 ; Van den Berg and Braun, 1999 ; Kavaratzis, 2008 ; Ashworth and Kavaratzis, 2009 ). In prac-tice, place branding could be applied to neighbourhoods, districts, tourist destina-tions, cities, rural areas, regions, states and countries. Metaphorically speaking, place branding is the family tree, with family members such as city branding, destination branding, nation branding and location branding acting as the branches.

Generally speaking, city branding strategies feature a wider scope than the typical destina-tion branding. The latter is primarily directed toward tourists, whereas city branding addresses all of the city s users, potential users and other stakeholders that are important for the functioning of cities ( Braun, 2008 ). Pike (2005) concluded that academia has produced a paucity of research into destination branding; a few years later, Balakrishnan (2009) rea-ched a similar conclusion. Despite the rela-tively small number of academic papers, Balakrishnan (2009) was still able to develop a framework for the strategic branding of des-tinations on the basis of a literature review. Doing a similar job for city branding would prove quite the challenge: even though the Journal of Place Branding and Public Diplomacy has existed since 2004, the growing popularity of city branding in practice is not (yet) refl ected in the mainstream marketing literature and does not feature the same depth as destina-tion branding. Granted, the number of inter-esting contributions is growing ( for example,

responsibility (see Hankinson, 2001 ; Anholt, 2008 ; Ashworth, 2008 ; Braun, 2008 ; Kavaratzis, 2008 ). Most of the academic research in this fi eld has either focused on the concept of the city brand or the transla-tion of marketing and branding concepts for cities (see for an overview Kavaratzis, 2008 ). The struggle of cities to effectively apply branding indicates that the issue of proper implementation deserves much more atten-tion in marketing academia.

This article puts the issue of implementing city branding central. The starting point of our analysis is the governance setting in which city branding takes place thus bringing two different academic fi elds branding and urban governance together. The under-lying assumption is that city branding is part of urban governance, or to put it differently: that city branding cannot be isolated from city politics. In this article, city branding will be considered in the context of urban gov-ernance and it is argued that understanding this setting is crucial for putting city branding into practice. The aim of this conceptual paper is to identify factors that affect imple-mentation; in other words, to uncover factors that allow professionals to more easily put city branding into practice. Those factors are directly related to urban governance, but the article also reviews specifi c strategic choices made in city branding that impact the polit-ical decision-making process and the wider support for city branding.

SETTING THE SCENE: CITY BRANDING Medway and Warnaby (2008) observed that places are being conceptualized as brands, referring to the work of Hankinson (2004) and Kavaratzis and Ashworth (2005) in par-ticular. Kavaratzis (2008, p. 11) considered city branding as a new application of city mar-keting because he identifi ed a change of focus from the rational character of marketing inter-ventions to creating emotional, mental, psy-chological associations with a city. Nonetheless,


Putting city branding into practice

259

Iversen and Hem, 2008 ; Kavaratzis, 2008 ; Medway and Warnaby, 2008 ; Ashworth and Kavaratzis, 2009 ; Zenker, 2009 ), but the cur-rent academic debate still needs a stimulus from marketing academics given that most of the early publications on place marketing and place branding were written by geogra-phers, urban planners, sociologists and regional economists.

In recent years, the most promising the-oretical developments for city branding have been based on corporate branding theory. Kavaratzis and Ashworth (2005) , Kavaratzis (2008) and Trueman et al (2004) underpin their analysis of city branding with insights from corporate branding. Additionally, Hankinsons (2004) model of places as relational brand networks moves away from product branding and develops a holistic view on place brands. Having said that, many critical issues for city branding still need to be addressed, such as the imple-mentation of city branding.

Hankinson (2001) was one of the fi rst authors to address the implementation of place branding empirically. He published the results of qualitative research conducted in 12 cities across the United Kingdom. These cities considered branding to be rel-evant, but still expressed confusion about the concept. That study also indicated that branding was not always applied effectively and identifi ed four factors that were par-ticularly important for the development of location brands: organizational complexity and control, the management of partner-ships, product complexity and the measure-ment of success ( Hankinson, 2001 ). It is immediately clear that most of these factors are concerned much more with the context of the branding process than the substance of branding itself. Likewise, Balakrishnan (2009, p. 612) summarized seven unique characteristics of a destination which dif-ferentiate it from corporate, product and service brands . Most of these character-istics are not connected to the specifi cs of

using branding, but to the context in which destination branding is applied such as the strong dependency on macro-environmental factors (terrorism, currency fl uctuations, politics), geographical con-straints (accessibility, location), past history (inherited names, heritage, culture, percep-tions), diverse and infl uential stakeholders (including governments), along with feed-back and control issues (no top-down decision-making structures) ( Balakrishnan, 2009 ). Generally speaking, most of these unique characteristics are also relevant for cities and hence for city branding.

What the papers mentioned above lack is a more in-depth analysis of the govern-ance setting in which city branding takes place, as well as the impact of specifi c choices made in the branding process that are particularly relevant for the implemen-tation. The comparative urban study of Braun (2008) into the implementation of city marketing concluded that embed-ding city marketing in urban governance and creating the right conditions for city marketing management will become key challenges for cities that want to make the most of their marketing efforts in the coming years ( Braun, 2008, p. 193 ). The assumption follows that this observation for city marketing is also relevant for city branding.

CITY BRANDING AS PART OF URBAN GOVERNANCE This article considers it crucial that city branding be seen in the context of what political scientists would describe as urban governance . A straightforward description of urban governance is how and by whom city policies are produced, decided and implemented ( Braun, 2008, p. 82 ). A detailed discussion of governance theory goes beyond the scope of this article, as there are several interpretations, concepts and defi nitions of (urban) governance (see for further reading: Stoker, 1998 ;

Braun


as an important condition for successful place marketing and branding. According to Rainisto (2003, p. 68) , political unity is needed to manage the process of the necessary decisions in a rational and con-sistent way . Anyone with some experi-ence in city politics knows that political decisions can result from a rational analysis, but that these decisions could just as well be infl uenced by emotions, the shifting interests of political parties, well-organized interest groups, the media and many other factors. In addition, political unity is a dif-fi cult concept to achieve: its realization is the exception rather than the rule in city councils; and although councils may con-tain stable political majorities, agreements could change over particular issues. Also, marketing and branding are long-term processes that usually last beyond the terms of elected city offi cials. Maintaining long-term political unity that is unaffected by changing city governments cannot be taken for granted: marketing professionals and politicians have to work hard to imple-ment city branding in such a way that their eventual successors also subscribe to those policies.

Essentially, the problem with the two suggested approaches is that city marketing and city branding are in fact positioned outside the administrative and political con-text of cities. However, this context cannot be treated as an exogenous variable because city marketing and city branding are part of it.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CITY BRANDING After acknowledging that city branding is inherently part of urban governance, the question arises: what does this mean for the implementation of city branding? As said earlier in the defi nition of Healey (2007) , governance is the array of mecha-nisms for structuring collective action.

Pierre, 1999 ; Kearns and Paddison, 2000 ; Kooiman, 2002 ). A suitable interpretation should incorporate the (potential) variety of stakeholders involved, as well as the fact that many city policies are joint initia-tives of public and private stakeholders. Healey (2007, p. 65) broadly defi nes gov-ernance as the array of mechanisms for structuring collective action, whether by government, by business associations or associations arising from within civil society . Hence, urban governance refers to governance in an urban region, city or neighbourhood ( Healey, 2006 ).

In practice, this defi nition implies that both public and private stakeholders are involved in city branding; and further, that city branding is a subject of political deci-sion-making that cannot be isolated from politics nor from administrative procedures. This is a crucial argument also supported by the observation of Anholt (2008, p. 1) , that one important message is fi nally begin-ning to permeate the general consciousness: that communications are no substitute for policies . The fact that city branding (and city marketing) is part of the political process makes the translation of marketing and branding insights fundamentally dif-ferent when applied to the context of cities.

There have been a few suggestions for how to handle this political context. Kotler et al (1999) proposed the establishment of a planning group (in which all relevant public and private stakeholders participate) to oversee the place s marketing and branding policies. This is easier said than done, due to the potentially confl icting interests of the public and private stake-holders (for example, Van den Berg and Braun, 1999 ; Trueman et al , 2004 ). Furthermore, in most European cities such a planning group would not eliminate the political infl uence on the place branding process. Rainisto (2003) took the idea of a planning group and added political unity



261

Consequently, we need to review mecha-nisms that structure collective action in this case city branding. Instead of mecha-nisms we use the term factors , which is more common in marketing research. These fac-tors are presented in the form of hypotheses.

The fi rst factor concerns the interpreta-tion of city branding by the city s political leadership and other key decision-makers. In other words, is there a clear majority view on the interpretation of city branding on the level of the city s decision-makers? It is argued here that a shared majority view on city branding among the city s deci-sion-makers stimulates a more coherent and integrated approach to branding, whereas confusion, confl icts and fragmen-tation hamper the implementation of city branding. Hankinsons (2001) study already touched upon this issue, showing that most of the surveyed city departments had lim-ited appreciation of what branding is ( Hankinson, 2001, p. 139 ). Furthermore, branding as a concept was seen as relevant but not always understood, and this has to be born in mind when considering the results. In particular, branding techniques were often limited to the development of logos, straplines and symbols ( Hankinson, 2001, p. 139 ). He also found that more progressive cities tried to develop a more customer-focused approach to branding, while less progressive cities worked with a product-oriented approach. The lack of understanding among the city s decision-makers can also be attributed to the weak consensus among marketing academics. As Kavaratzis and Ashworth (2005, p. 508) put it: Unfortunately there is no single accepted defi nition of place branding and the mar-keting experts have often compounded the problem by their attempts to elaborate. Currently, there is at least a general agree-ment in the marketing literature that the brand is more than an identifying name given to a product. It is also not

(as some marketing commentators seem to be suggesting) a synonym for a single catchy slogan, however much of this might embody the aspirations of the city authorities .

Hence, it comes as no surprise that a misunderstanding persists about the defi ni-tion of city branding. A politician or senior city offi cial that opens his or her marketing textbook from the 1990s reads that a brand is a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors ( Kotler 1991, p. 442 ). This defi nition is still used by the American Marketing Association. However, a colleague of the politician or senior offi cial who has read an academic paper, such as the overview paper of Balmer (2001) , will possess a rather dif-ferent interpretation. And a third colleague who speaks with an infl uential branding consultant will develop yet another view on branding. This leads us to the fi rst hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: A shared majority view on the interpretation of city branding among the city s political leadership and other city decision-makers posi-tively affect putting city branding into practice.

The second factor relates to the city s polit-ical priorities. A (newly) elected city gov-ernment will present its programme and political priorities for the time in offi ce. Some cities also work to sustain a long-term vision that stretches beyond the offi ce term of one particular government. Explicitly including the city branding objectives into the city s political priorities, programmes and long-term vision signifi cantly helps those responsible for the branding. Firstly, this approach reinforces the position of city branding in relation to the set of other

Braun


In most European cities, the political responsibilities are organized through aldermen, such as an alderman for eco-nomic development and tourism or an alderman for sports and culture. A clearly defi ned political responsibility for city branding (together with city marketing) would fi t the political systems of most of Europe s cities. Moreover, the absence of a clear political responsibility could imply that city branding has little political backing, thus weakening its position in relation to other city policy fi elds. In short, it is imper-ative that the political responsibility for city branding be clear. This is expressed in the third hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Unambiguous political re-sponsibility for city branding increases the chance of successful implementa-tion of city branding.

The fourth factor is stakeholder management. A key element in the governance literature is that many decisions, policies and actions are not just a matter of government and its traditional planning procedures: they at least partly arise from strategic networks of public and private stakeholders ( for example Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004 ; Agranoff and McGuire, 2001 ; Van den Berg and Braun, 1999 ; Kooiman, 2002 ). Stakeholder manage-ment is a central element in many different branding theories and it appropriately features prominently in city branding frameworks (for example, Hankinson, 2004 ; Trueman et al , 2004 ; Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2005 ) as well as destination branding frameworks (see Balakrishnan, 2009 ). City branding is by defi nition branding in a network setting; therefore, it is also the collective action of public and private stakeholders. This reso-nates with the recent debate in the branding literature on brand co-creation (see Hatch and Schulz, 2010 ). Furthermore, Hankinson (2004) argued that the city s products are managed by a complex organization of

city policies. Secondly, if city branding objectives are set by the elected offi cials, branding is safeguarded from the status of an outsider that might compete with the offi cial city policies. Finally, the inclusion of the city brand objectives yields an effect similar to a fi rm s mission, setting a limit on the type of brand concepts that can be considered ( Park et al , 1986 ). By basing the city brand concepts on the included objec-tives, branding agents can minimize the potential confusion discussed above. Our second hypothesis addresses this issue:

Hypothesis 2: Including city branding objectives in the political priorities, programme and long-term city vision has a positive effect on putting city branding into practice.

The third factor concerns the political responsibility for city marketing and city branding, as well as the position of city marketing and branding in relation to other functional policy areas, programmes and projects. Van den Berg and Braun (1999) already pointed to the importance of lead-ership based on formal and material com-petence in city marketing and branding. Rainisto (2003) and Braun (2008) also denoted the importance of leadership. City branding leadership at the political level both formal and material is very impor-tant. The political systems of most European countries need clear political responsibilities for separate policy fi elds (for example, transportation, economic development, education and social welfare). In that way, elected politicians can be held accountable for their activities. This practical subdivi-sion of policy fi elds is usually also refl ected in the departmental organization of the city administration. Depending on the city s political system, the responsibility for city branding could lie with the mayor, the aldermen in the city cabinet, leaders of the council, or other powerful stakeholders.



263

public and private sector stakeholders, making place branding fi rst and foremost a coordi-nated process rather than a managed activity ( Hankinson, 2004, p. 112 ). In practice, city brand management is very much stakeholder management, involving decisions about which stakeholders to include and during which part of the branding process, as well as organizing support in the community. The two dimensions of this process involving the right stakeholders to help build the brand and orchestrating the right political involve-ment to safeguard the branding process are not easily separated. Hence, the fourth hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 4: Adequate stakeholder man-agement affects the implementation of a city branding strategy positively.

The next four factors concern specifi c choices made regarding the city brand and the process of building the city brand. These choices are particularly relevant in the urban governance setting because of their potentially signifi cant effect on the progress of the city branding effort.

The fi fth factor deals with the authenticity of the city branding effort. Is the city branding genuine and credible? The choices made for the substance of the brand could make or break the city brand. Herbig and Milewicz (1995) have argued that brands are signals of quality and value for customers: the objective of brands is to create symbolic meaning which assists the customer in the decision-making process ( Herbig and Milewicz, 1995, p. 8 ). In the decision-making process cus-tomers experience these signals created by the brand; likewise, a city brand sends signals to (prospective) costumers too. As Kavaratzis (2008) observed, a city communicates not just through its deliberate communication policies (for example, public relations, cam-paigns, the Web, and so on), but also through its landscape, infrastructure, organizational structure and behaviour (of city users, events,

services, and so on). Kavaratzis (2008) called the latter form primary communication and the former secondary commu nication. Effective city branding requires that the sec-ondary communication be in line with the primary communication. The possible gap between exaggerated claims in secondary communication and the primary signals of the city s reality could negatively affect the city brand. In turn, this could lead to bad word of mouth (tertiary communication in the framework of Kavaratzis) for the city brand. In other words, city branding has to be genuine to remain believable. Thus, hypothesis number fi ve is:

Hypothesis 5: Putting city branding into practice requires that city branding is genuine and credible.

The sixth factor concerns the strategic choices made regarding the target audi-ences of city branding. Who are cities tar-geting with city branding? The easiest answer to this question is all the people and organizations that are important for the functioning of the city. A related issue is how cities are dealing with the wide variety of customers that could be targeted through city branding. In many ways, a city brand could benefi t from the main ideas that support the concept of umbrella branding. In lieu of this, Iversen and Hem (2008) have developed a framework for place umbrella brands. They argue that it should be possible to market a group of very dif-ferent products under the umbrella of the place s reputation. The diffi cult part, according to Iversen and Hem (2008) , is to identify a few core brand values that encompass the complexity of the total offerings of the place; it concerns, in their words, the essence of the place and the spirit of its people ( Iversen and Hem, 2008, p. 611 ). Contrary to the analysis of Iversen and Hem, it is argued here that umbrella branding in the case of city

Braun


The seventh factor is about another stra-tegic option in the city branding process: utilizing the opportunities that most cities have for co-branding. Among others, Knox and Bickerton (2003) have argued that branding is a deliberate process of selecting associations that add value to the offering. Successful brands within the city can be used to strengthen the city brand. The idea is similar to co-branding where marketers try to transfer the positive associations of one co-branding partner to the other ( Washburn et al , 2000 ). In the case of city branding, examples could be a university, an internationally successful football club (see Smith (2005) for the impact of Manchester United on Manchester s sporting image), a museum (see Plazas (2000) analysis of the Guggenheim effect for Bilbao), or any other company, indi-vidual or institution with a positive and reliable reputation.

Even without a co-branding strategy there are already many links between the city brand and those brands within the city. These individual brands can be successful or unsuccessful, and the links could be desirable or undesirable. Taking full advan-tage of positive co-branding opportunities is a strategic choice for the city brand. Of course, those brands have to comple-ment the strategic branding framework adopted by the city, but these successful brands do not need to be perfectly on brand . The point of importance is estab-lishing (or strengthening) an explicit link between the city brand and the successful brand(s) in the city, thus creating a positive association for the city. Not only is this strategy cost-effective, but it could also help to organize stakeholder support for the city s branding efforts. That said the seventh hypothesis on co-branding is presented below:

Hypothesis 7: The implementation of city branding is stimulated by co-branding

branding is not a geographical umbrella with sub-brands for (smaller) geographical areas included in the umbrella. The umbrella city brand refers to all the people and organizations that are important for the functioning of a city that is, all the existing and potential customers.

At the same time, one of the basic rules in marketing is to identify target groups and communicate directly to this audience ( Achrol and Kotler, 1999 ). Van den Berg and Braun (1999) and Braun (2008) have identifi ed four general categories of (existing and potential) city customers: residents, companies, visitors and investors. They chose to include the last group of customers investors explicitly. This group consists of professional investors such as pension funds, real estate companies, banks, venture capitalists, and so on. They invest capital into locations and projects in the city, but do not necessarily locate in a particular place. Depending on the characteristics of the city, one could also add special cus-tomer groups such as students, commuters and of course the intermediary organiza-tions that affect the perceptions of these customer groups. These could be travel agents, property developers, the media ( Avraham, 2000 ) and many more. In this line of thought, cities need to work with sub-brands for particular target audiences to be more effective. For example, the desti-nation branding of the city of Amsterdam is different from Amsterdam s efforts to attract inward investment. This implies that it is more appropriate to work with sub-brands for different city target groups. Consequently, the challenge is to combine these sub-brands with the umbrella brand as stated in Hypothesis 6:

Hypothesis 6: A combination of umbrella branding for all target audiences with sub-brands for particular city custom-ers groups affects the implementation of city branding positively.



265

the city with successful brands in the city of companies, institutions, events and people.

The eighth and fi nal factor is also inherent to the choices made in the city branding process: it is the balancing act that many practitioners will recognize between the distinctiveness of city branding choices and the wider support from the city s commu-nity. According to Keller (2003) , one of the main objectives of branding is to dif-ferentiate your offering from the offerings of competitors. Brands should create dif-ferentiation. Kotler and Gertner (2002) claimed that the desired place (brand) image must be close to reality (see also Hypothesis 5), believable, simple, appealing and dis-tinctive. This notion is also highly relevant for city branding. However, city branding is inevitably a process that involves a great deal of stakeholders (see Hypothesis 4). Creating a distinctive brand while incorpo-rating the input of relevant stakeholders presents one of the main challenges of city branding today. A serious risk arises when support falls behind a bleak, undif-ferentiated and compromising city brand. However, developing a strong differenti-ated brand with just a small group of experts could potentially jeopardize support for the city s branding initiative. Cities thus need to walk the tightrope between these extremes as refl ected in hypothesis number eight:

Hypothesis 8: Putting city branding into practice requires striking a balance be-tween a distinctive focus for the city brand and wider support in the city s communities.

CONCLUSIONS This article has identifi ed a critical issue that has received too little attention from place-related marketing academia: namely,

putting city branding into practice. The central idea underpinning the analysis in this article is that the implementation of city branding takes place in the context of urban governance. The previous attempts to deal with this administrative and political dimension of city branding have turned it into an exogenous variable. This article argues that city branding is by defi nition part of the administrative and political process. It is a crucial observation that has raised the question: what does this mean for the implementation of city branding?

In total, the article identifi ed eight factors that can (positively or negatively) affect the implementation of city branding. All of these factors are relevant because of the urban governance context in which city branding occurs. The fi rst four factors directly link with the context: the majority view on city branding; the inclusion of city branding in the political priorities; unambiguous political responsibility; and stakeholder management. Of course, these factors are not just relevant to city branding, but to city policies in general. However, these factors are especially important for reinforcing the signifi cance of city branding in relation to the city s traditional policies. The pitfall is to present such a relatively new phenomenon as city branding as a clinical method or technique that can work independently of the political process and be applied to cities without proper adaptation. The same happened with the introduction of city marketing in the late 1980s and early 1990s ( see Paddison, 1993 ; Braun, 2008 ), the consequences of which are still visible in city marketing practice today.

The remaining four factors link to the urban governance context through strategic choices regarding the substance of the brand and the approach to building the brand: genuine and credible city branding; umbrella city branding versus sub-brands; strategic

Braun


empirically. This limitation is also an oppor-tunity for future research. The next step would be to test and develop these hypoth-eses further through a series of in-depth case studies; it is imperative to test both the individual hypotheses as well as explore the relationship among these hypotheses. Another limitation is that the fi nancial resources for city branding are not included as a factor in our analysis. Understanding the issue of availability of fi nancial resources and establishing the real budgets for city marketing and city branding is a research project of its own. The budgets of the directly responsible marketing organiza-tions are only a part of the story as the fi nancial means for marketing activities and related investments come from various public and private sources. Finally, some observers might see a limitation in the attempt of this article to bring together insights from two different academic fi elds: branding and urban governance, both using very different terminology. However, this article adopted the different view that these two fi elds together create more depth in the academic debate on city branding. This is imperative for both academics and practitioners.

REFERENCES Achrol , R . S . and Kotler , P . H . ( 1999 ) Marketing

in the network economy . Journal of Marketing 63 (Special Issue) : 146 163 .

Agranoff , R . and McGuire , M . ( 2001 ) Big questions in public network management research . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11 (3) : 295 326 .

Anholt , S . ( 2008 ) Place branding: Is it marketing, or isn t it? Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 4 (1) : 1 6 .

Ashworth , G . J . ( 2008 ) Can We, Do We, Should We, Brand Places? The First International Conference Marketing Cities: Place Branding in Perspective ; 4 6 December, Berlin, Germany , http://www.inpolis.de/inpolis-projektdetail_1_en.html .

Ashworth , G . J . and Kavaratzis , M . ( 2009 ) Beyond the logo: Brand management for cities . Journal of Brand Management 16 (8) : 520 531 .

Ashworth , G . J . and Voogd , H . ( 1990 ) Selling the City: Marketing Approaches in Public Sector Urban Planning . London: Belhaven Press .

co-branding with strong brands in the city; and the balancing act between distinctive-ness and wide support for the brand. Obviously, these choices are specifi c to branding and not to other city policies. Nonetheless, the choices made concerning these factors could seriously impact the effectiveness of city branding in the urban governance setting. On one hand, they could signifi cantly help the implementation of city branding, but at the same time, the wrong choice with regard to these factors could negatively affect the progress of the branding process, and sometimes even create considerable political problems. The negative affect could especially happen for the aforementioned balancing act, as well as to the issue of city branding being gen-uine and credible.

Ultimately, these eight factors could serve as a guideline for decision-makers and marketing professionals responsible for the implementation of city branding. In addi-tion, there are implications for the way city branding is coordinated as well as for the organizations involved in its implementa-tion. Regarding organizations, it is impor-tant to note that simply being good at marketing is not enough for the individuals working in such organizations: they need to combine marketing excellence with the sensitivity of operating in such a political setting. As far as the coordination is con-cerned, the analysis does not offer a blue-print for the organizational structure enabling implementation of city branding. In fact, this would be contradictive to the analysis. The urban governance setting dif-fers among cities and thus requires tailor-made solutions. What can be derived from the analysis is that establishing city mar-keting or city branding agencies without a direct or indirect link with the city s political leadership is counterproductive.

There are of course limitations to this analysis. First, it is a conceptual paper and the hypotheses put forward should be tested



267

Avraham , E . ( 2000 ) Cities and their news media images . Cities 17 (5) : 363 370 .

Balakrishnan , M . S . ( 2009 ) Strategic branding of destina-tions: A framework . European Journal of Marketing 43 (5/6) : 611 629 .

Balmer , J . M . T . ( 2001 ) Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing: Seeing through the fog . European Journal of Marketing 35 (3 / 4) : 248 291 .

Braun , E . ( 2008 ) City marketing: Towards an inte-grated approach . ERIM PhD Series in Research and Management, 142, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), Rotterdam , http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13694 .

Hankinson , G . ( 2001 ) Location branding: A study of the branding practices of 12 English cities . Journal of Brand Management 9 (2) : 127 142 .

Hankinson , G . ( 2004 ) Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands . Journal of Vacation Marketing 10 (2) : 109 121 .

Hatch , M . J . and Schulz , M . ( 2010 ) Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications for brand govern-ance . Journal of Brand Management 17 (8) : 590 604 .

Healey , P . ( 2006 ) Transforming governance: Challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space . European Planning Studies 14 (3) : 299 320 .

Healey , P . ( 2007 ) The new institutionalism and the transformative goals of planning . In: N. Verma (ed.) Institutions and Planning . Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier , pp. 61 90 .

Herbig , P . and Milewicz , J . ( 1995 ) The relationship of reputation and credibility to brand success . Journal of Consumer Marketing 12 (4) : 5 10 .

Iversen , N . M . and Hem , L . E . ( 2008 ) Provenance asso-ciations as core values of place umbrella brands: A framework of characteristics . European Journal of Marketing 42 (5/6) : 603 626 .

Kavaratzis , M . ( 2008 ) From city marketing to city branding: An interdisciplinary analysis with refer-ence to Amsterdam, Budapest and Athens . PhD thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen .

Kavaratzis , M . and Ashworth , G . J . ( 2005 ) City branding: An effective assertion of identity or a transitory marketing trick? Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografi e 96 (5) : 506 514 .

Kearns , A . and Paddison , R . ( 2000 ) New challenges for urban governance . Urban Studies 37 (5/6) : 845 850 .

Keller , K . L . ( 2003 ) Strategic Brand Management. Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity , 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .

Knox , S . and Bickerton , D . ( 2003 ) The six conventions of corporate branding . European Journal of Marketing 37 (7 / 8) : 998 1016 .

Koppenjan , J . and Klijn , E . H . ( 2004 ) Managing Uncer-tainties in Networks: A Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making . London: Routledge .

Kooiman , J . ( 2002 ) Governance: A social-political per-spective . In: J.R. Grote and B. Gbikpi (eds.) Participa-tory Governance. Political and Societal Impli cations . Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich , pp. 71 96 .

Kotler , P . H . ( 1991 ) Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control , 8th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .

Kotler , P . H . , Asplund , C . , Rein , I . and Haider , D . ( 1999 ) Marketing Places Europe: Attracting Investments, Industries, and Visitors to European Cities, Communi-ties, Regions and Nations . Harlow, UK: Financial Times Prentice-Hall .

Kotler , P . H . and Gertner , D . ( 2002 ) Country as brand, product, and beyond: A place marketing and brand management perspective . Journal of Brand Manage-ment 9 (4/5) : 249 261 .

Medway , D . and Warnaby , G . ( 2008 ) Alternative perspectives on marketing and the place brand . European Journal of Marketing 42 (5/6) : 641 653 .

Paddison , R . ( 1993 ) City marketing, image reconstruc-tion, and urban regeneration . Urban Studies 30 (2) : 339 350 .

Park , C . W . , Jaworski , B . J . and Maclnnis , D . J . ( 1986 ) Strategic brand concept-image management . Journal of Marketing 50 (4) : 135 145 .

Pierre , J . ( 1999 ) Models of urban governance. The institutional dimension of urban politics . Urban affairs review 34 (3) : 372 396 .

Pike , S . ( 2005 ) Tourism destination branding com-plexity . Journal of Product & Brand Management 14 (4) : 258 259 .

Plaza , B . ( 2000 ) Evaluating the infl uence of a large cultural artifact in the attraction of tourism: The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao case . Urban Affairs Review 36 (2) : 264 274 .

Rainisto , S . K . ( 2003 ) Success factors of place mar-keting: A study of place marketing practices in northern Europe and the United States . PhD thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Institute of Strategy and International Business, Helsinki .

Smith , A . ( 2005 ) Re-imaging the city: The value of sport initiatives . Annals of Tourism Research 32 (1) : 229 248 .

Stoker , G . ( 1998 ) Governance as Theory: Five Propositions . Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers .

Trueman , M . , Klemm , M . and Giroud , A . ( 2004 ) Can a city communicate? Bradford as a corporate brand . Corporate Communications: An International Journal 9 (4) : 317 330 .

Van den Berg , L . and Braun , E . ( 1999 ) Urban com-petitiveness, marketing and the need for organising capacity . Urban Studies 36 (5/6) : 987 999 .

Washburn , J . H . , Till , B . D . and Priluck , R . ( 2000 ) Co-branding: Brand equity and trial effects . Journal of Consumer Marketing 17 (7) : 591 604 .

Zenker , S . ( 2009 ) Whos your target? The creative class as a target group for place branding . Journal of Place Management and Development 2 (1) : 23 32 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

putting city branding

Documents