Serbia brand identity:perspectives of residents

and diasporaBranka Novcic and Vesna DamnjanovicDepartment of Marketing and Public Relations,

Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade,Belgrade, Serbia, and

Mihajlo PopeskuUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify, compare and contrast different perspectives ofSerbian residents and diaspora regarding Serbia brand identity.Design/methodology/approach – Attitudinal statements for research design of study werecollected within a period of 12 months from national media (TV and newspapers) and ten focus groups.Multiple surveying techniques consisting of on-the-filed and on-line surveys were applied. In total, 900responses were collected and results were analyzed using principal component; also 740 examineeswith Serbian citizenship and permanent residence in Serbia participated in the survey and 160examinees from diaspora.Findings – Findings demonstrated that certain differences and similarities exist in the Serbia brandimage perceptions between Serbian residents and diaspora. The first difference is reflected in thenumber of brand identity elements identified by each of the two examined groups. Diaspora identifiedfour brand identity elements which are marked as mild nostalgia, business and pleasure destination,great cuisine and negative media bias; whilst residents identified six elements: people, obsolescence,negative media bias, cultural uniqueness, tourist destination and national treasure. The seconddifference, reflected in the mere content of the brand elements, is mainly determined by the fact thatdiaspora’s perception is mainly influenced by the nostalgia, whilst residents’ perception is mainlyinfluenced by national pride. These elements constantly interact to fulfil country brand promises tostakeholders.Research limitations/implications – The main constrains in this research study refer to smallsample for diaspora and people living in Serbian countryside; people with a lower education areunderrepresented.Practical implications – The study suggests guidelines for long-term brand strategy developmentfor Serbia as a brand. Different framework of destination brand identity from resident and diasporaperspective can be of immense use to brand planners for identification of problems for better brandpositioning of Serbia as a country.Originality/value – The research results emphasize perceptions of Serbia brand identity fromresident and diaspora perspective and provide better understanding of the main components forcommunicating country branding strategy for Serbia. Both groups hold the view that Serbia suffersfrom negative media bias but still stays a recommendable tourist destination and a place to be.

Keywords Serbia, National cultures, Brand identity, Resident perspective, Diapora perspective,Country brand identity

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionAfter Yugoslavia fell apart, six newly formed countries (Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia,Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, FYROM) had tasks to create their new brandidentities. Despite all the challenges, this opened numerous opportunities for

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1450-2194.htm

EuroMed Journal of BusinessVol. 7 No. 3, 2012pp. 256-267r Emerald Group Publishing Limited1450-2194DOI 10.1108/14502191211265316

256

EMJB7,3

international brand experts and marketing scholars to get involved and contribute inthe terms of destination branding and strategic brand identity development. Konecniket al. (2010) argue that managing destination brands focussing on only one stakeholderis myopic. In contrast to this, our study examines destination brand perception throughthe spectacles of two interrelated but different audiences: Serbian residents (internalaudience) and Serbian diaspora (external audience). The country of Serbia appeared asa fertile research context for brand destination image types of study based on thefollowing arguments. First, in 2003 after dissolution of the Serbia and Montenegrostate union, Serbia became a “new to the market” country and a destination beckoningfor a serious branding approach. Second, Serbia is endowed with diaspora almostequal to the size of its own population. It is estimated that approximately six millionSerbs live abroad, compared to the 7.5 million Serbian citizens living in Serbia(Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, 2010; Ministry of Religion and Diaspora ofthe Republic of Serbia, 2010). Third, Serbia is economically dependent on diaspora,which represents a significant source of foreign income. In 2010, diaspora forwarded toSerbia 3.1 billion euros, or 5 percent of Serbian GDP (Mikavica, 2011). Therefore, thereis a strong economic rational to provide a better understanding of diaspora’s perceptionof their homeland identity.

This being said, Serbia, with all its properties, represents an interesting and suitablecontext for a comparative (diaspora residents) brand perception research with possiblecontribution to both theory and practice.

2. Literature reviewThe first literature stream relevant for this study is general literature on destinationbranding, destination brand identity and destination image. The interest of scholarsand practitioners for the issues surrounding these topics has been steadily growing inrecent years (Qu et al., 2011; Roy and Banerjee, 2007; Tasci and Kozak, 2006). In theperiod 1998-2007, 74 destination branding publications by 102 authors were identified(Pike, 2009). Mainstream studies on brand strategy development at the national levelmostly explore attitudes of external stakeholders, usually focussing on the multiplestakeholder groups. For example, Anholt (2005) explores the consumer perspective onAmerica’s brand image from the viewpoint of ten different countries. Morgan et al.(2003) examine the influence of public and private sector stakeholders on the brandimage of New Zealand. Ekinci et al. (2007) explore visitors’ opinions about the brandpersonality of Turkey. Other authors in their study (Hsu et al., 2009) identify the factorsthat influence the tourists’ choice of destination and evaluate the preferences of touristsfor destinations for the Taiwan brand image as a country.

The second relevant literature stream has particular focus on the destination imageof ex-Yugoslav republics. Authors Kaufmann and Durst (2008) who investigateda case study about Liechtenstein identified that development and management ofinter-regional brands crossing nations and cultures currently lacks any empiricallyresearched systematic theory. A respectable number of studies outlined the rebrandingnecessity of former Yugoslavian republics that appeared as new states on theglobal scene burdened with their post-conflict media image. The increased interestwas followed by the number of publications. For example, Hall (2002) examinedSerbia brand identity and found Serbia as the meeting place of cultures, religionsand languages. Furthermore, he found Serbia as a multiethnic country where allthe ethnicities have one thing in common – their homes are wide open to friends. In thecase of Bosnia, Duborija and Mlivic (2008) recognized local people as the key element

257

Serbia brandidentity

for building a distinctive brand image of Bosnia. In the case of Croatia, Martinovic(2002) analyzed poor international destination brand recognition. Martinovic (2002)suggested that Croatia focus on geo-economic position, natural resources, humanresources, tradition and social and cultural activities in positioning their destinationbrand. Konecnik and Go (2008) describe the endeavors of Slovenia to position theirsmall country on the fierce international destination market using the slogan “I feelSlovenia.” None of the identified studies explored their diaspora’s perception of thehome country.

The third literature stream is studying the importance of local people for adestination brand identity. In the case of Portugal (Freire, 2007), friendliness of the localpeople was found to be important for the brand building process in Portugal. In thecase of Stoke-on-Trent (UK), Phillips and Schofield (2007) found that the perception ofresidents is an important component of the place brand identity. Recent studies byMerrilees et al. (2012) also examined residents as an important stakeholder in thebranding context; residents perceive the city brand as a place to live. Local residentsGarrod et al. (2012) may also be important providers of word-of-mouth promotion andvolunteer for place attraction externally. Previous studies on Serbia by Hall (2002) andPopesku et al. (2010) explored brand identity of Serbia, focussing exclusively oninternal stakeholders.

The fourth and final relevant literature stream for this study is literature ondiaspora and their importance for home country branding. For example, in the case ofCaribbeans, Conway and Timms (2010) have identified multiple roles of diaspora:development through remittances, contribution to disaster relief, investments savingsin the home country, doing business in the home country, giving professional advice tolocal communities, etc. In the case of Samoa, a Pacific Island country, it was found thatcitizens and diaspora have a significant impact on Samoa’s branding success and thedevelopment of the tourism industry (Scheyvens, 2007). Newland and Taylor (2010)found a strong association between nostalgia and returning visits of diaspora to thehome country. Furthermore, Newland and Taylor (2010) concluded that nostalgiahelps diaspora to maintain a sense of identity and community while living abroad.Morgan et al. (2002) argue that nostalgia as a feeling is the most important element ofthe marketing communication strategy toward diaspora. Diaspora, as an importantstakeholder for the brand image of a country, on the internal plan, can be active, bothas tourist visitors and as entrepreneurs contributing to the homeland’s economicaland industrial development. On the external plan, diaspora can play a vital role inrepresenting their home country as good ambassadors.

Building on the actual literature and identified literature gap our research has andhaving in mind immense economic importance of diaspora for Serbia as a country,it would be important to examine and compare their perceptions with the perceptionsof residents. The proposed research question can be framed as following: What arethe differences and similarities between Serbian residents and diaspora in relation tothe elements of Serbian destination brand identity?

3. MethodologyBrand is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon (Maurya and Mishra, 2012). Thebrand image of a country has similar features. Brijs et al. (2011) argue that whenmentioning a country the consumer automatically activates a complex, internallystored network of references, associations and images. Concepts with high level ofidiosyncrasies, such as brands and brand image, demand multi-method or mixed

258

EMJB7,3

method research design so that the phenomena of interest can be explored fromdifferent angles. In this study an exploratory sequential mixed method research designwas applied. The main reason was to address the issue of complexity. The features ofmixed methods were fitting for the nature of the problem we explore. The mixedmethods approach is good for studying complex phenomena (Salehi and Golafshani,2010) and has a broader perspective compared to mono-method research (Azorın andCameron, 2010; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). In our case the mixed method hadtwo phases:

Phase 1: exploratory (qualitative) phase:

. Selection appropriate research context.

. Research methods: content analysis of media content and focus groups.

. Sampling: convenience sampling.

. Sample size: 60.

. Result analysis: thematic analysis using nVivo 9.

. Phase goal: to discover elements of Serbia brand image and help buildinginstrument for Phase 2.

Phase 2: confirmatory (quantitative) phase:

. Research method: survey (instrument will be developed based on finding fromPhase 1).

. Sampling: random sampling.

. Sample size: 900.

. Result analysis: principal component analysis (PCA) in SPSS 17.9.

. Phase goal: to find and confirm structure of Serbia brand image.

The questionnaire consisted of a relatively large number of attitudinal questions on anumber of frequent stereotype attitudes shared in the discourse of everydaycommunication, media, history and collective consciousness of Serbs. This mightappear as a radical and risky approach in the research design, but in the cases whenresearchers do not have previous study to refer to, or the phenomena of study is new,a start from scratch approach seems inevitable. Attitudinal statements were collectedwithin a period of 12 months from national media (TV and newspapers) and ten focusgroups. Four different researchers were independently coding frequent issuesregarding the perception of Serbia and the lists were than compared and convergencesidentified. Further inspiration for the questionnaire design was found in the work ofRistiano (2005) who provided a theoretical framework consisting of generic elements of acountry’s brand identity. Thus, our initial questionnaire consisted of seven clusters ofquestions: demography, brand culture, brand personality, brand character, brandsymbols, brand name and brand slogan related questions. We undertook pilot testing totest the questions and make sure that questions were appropriate and relevant. Thequestionnaire was pilot tested on a group of 160 examinees. The final list of issuesconsisted of the 38 most frequent attitudinal statements on the image of Serbia and anumber of socio-demographic questions. In the phase of confirmatory research, PCA wasused in order to distinguish significant from insignificant brand image elements. Tomeasure attitudes, a five-item Likert scale was used with strongly disagree – weight of 1

259

Serbia brandidentity

and strongly agree – weight of 5, as the scale anchors. The original questionnaire hada question labelled “residence” where optional answers were: permanently in Serbia,occasionally and permanent elsewhere. This question was used to capture if ourexaminees were members of diaspora or residents. Serbs that occasionally live in Serbiawere identified as diaspora, as well.

Surveying lasted for three weeks in April 2010. People were surveyed on-line and onthe field. In order to avoid response bias through the on-line survey, on the field onlypeople older than 40 years were interviewed. In order to secure responses fromdiaspora, one group of surveyors was placed on the Belgrade airport. After expirationof the surveying period, the on-line survey was closed. Results were coded and insertedin the SPSS 17.0 software, which was used for statistical analysis. Following goodpractice of Palant (2005) and Malhotra (2007), prior to the data analysis, error screeningand data cleaning was undertaken. After ensuring that there are no missing valuesor values of the variables that fall outside defined ranges, the data were analyzed. Thefollowing statistical tools were used: first, descriptive statistics tools were used tocapture average values on the examined issues. These tools were very helpfulto extrapolate demographic profile of participants and their general impressions.Second, factor analysis – exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used. Theaim of this tool was to reveal the underlying structure (i.e. Serbia brand identity) anddetermine how many reliable and interpretable brand elements can be found withinboth of the examined groups.

4. FindingsIn total 900 people were surveyed, from which 740 were residents and 160 diaspora.Both of the groups, in terms of size, were suitable for PCA. According to therecommendation by Tabachnik and Fidell (2007) and Stevens (1996), it is comforting tohave at least 300 cases or 150 cases, in the case when solutions have several highloading market variables (above 0.80). These conditions are met in both of our targetgroups (refer to the Tables I and II for further details).

As this study aimed to determine and discuss differences and similarities betweenSerbian residents and diaspora regarding elements of Serbian destination brandidentity, the first step was to split the dataset into two groups – residents and diasporaand conduct separate analyses. The second step was to determine brand identityelements for each of the two groups and test their explanatory power. The final stepwas to compare results and give critical evaluation of the similarities and differenceand their implications for theory and practice.

4.1 Serbia brand identity: residents’ perspectiveThe surveyed residents (n¼ 740) were on average 30.36 years old (SD 9.969, median 27,mode 25, range 15-81 years). Prior to the performing of PCA, the suitability of datafor factor analysis was assessed. PCA was repeated three times with the exclusion ofattitudinal statements with communalities lower than 0.5. Finally, 27 attitudinalstatements are left. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed that all of thecoefficients were equal to or higher than 0.3. This confirmed that the dataset wassuitable for the factor analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was 0.882, exceeding theminimal required value of 0.6 (Kaiser, 1970, 1974) while Bartlett’s test of sphericityreached statistical significance of 0.00, supporting factorability of the correlationmatrix. Initial PCA was performed using the Oblimin rotation technique whichsuggested eight factors/components. In order to determine the optimal number of

260

EMJB7,3

factors, parallel analysis (MonteKarlo simulation) was used and eigenvalues werecompared with the eigenvalues given by the PCA (Palant, 2005). Parallel analysisshowed six components with eigenvalues exceeding the corresponding criterion valuesfor a randomly generated data matrix of the same size (27 variables� 740 responses).

Pattern/structure coefficientsCommunalityAttitudinal statement C1 C2 T3 T4 C5 C6

Serbs love folk music 0.671 �0.020 0.051 0.178 �0.141 0.161 0.487Serbia is always burdened withproblems 0.650 �0.217 0.073 0.197 �0.143 �0.025 0.466Serbs love to know everything 0.647 0.009 �0.112 0.234 �0.260 �0.003 0.431Celebrations play vital role in thelives of Serbians 0.698 �0.030 �0.232 0.408 �0.387 0.183 0.573Serbs are talented for sports 0.600 0.239 �0.254 0.523 �0.443 0.159 0.529Serbs are beautiful nation 0.491 0.260 �0.266 0.531 �0.446 0.282 0.510The image of Serbia in media is fullof contradictions 0.419 �0.086 0.033 0.216 �0.264 �0.226 0.283Serbia is mainly urban 0.039 0.756 �0.015 0.123 �0.207 0.110 0.585Serbia is modern and developed �0.148 0.714 �0.031 0.011 �0.121 0.357 0.588Serbia is manly agriculturaland rural 0.157 �0.496 �0.038 0.203 �0.141 0.364 0.294Serbia is European country �0.027 0.518 �0.020 0.163 �0.081 0.196 0.671The image of Serbia in mediais positive �0.060 0.074 0.787 �0.010 0.079 0.045 0.497The media image of Serbia is betterthan reality 0.135 �0.074 0.755 �0.107 0.083 �0.221 0.658Serbia is as presented by the foreignmedia �0.189 �0.195 0.615 �0.424 0.222 0.124 0.656Serbia is as presented by thedomestic media �0.125 0.131 0.502 �0.180 �0.015 0.462 0.531I would recommend every foreignerto visit Serbia 0.150 0.148 �0.123 0.778 �0.444 0.086 0.501Serbia is country of hospitality 0.276 0.183 �0.165 0.796 �0.386 0.162 0.651Serbia has great national cuisine 0.349 0.053 �0.163 0.782 �0.319 0.145 0.646In Serbia people spend more thanthey have 0.410 �0.162 �0.129 0.686 �0.218 �0.017 0.623Serbia is a country of glorifiedhistory 0.133 0.198 �0.186 0.643 �0.530 0.339 0.562Serbia is rich in archeological sights 0.175 0.086 �0.074 0.318 �0.862 0.088 0.565Serbia is rich in monuments 0.220 0.145 �0.129 0.342 �0.833 0.206 0.762Serbia is rich in nature beauties 0.464 0.109 �0.201 0.516 �0.753 0.168 0.698Serbia is rich in monasteries 0.573 0.056 �0.173 0.435 �0.727 0.173 0.657In Serbia, tradition is speciallynurtured 0.146 0.278 �0.014 0.272 �0.219 0.682 0.671Serbs have unique and distinctiveculture 0.258 0.308 �0.141 0.412 �0.545 0.474 0.497Church plays vital role in lives ofSerbian people 0.234 0.121 �0.105 0.196 �0.293 0.640 0.474

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Total% of variance explained 25.54 8.5 7.01 4.99 4.72 4.5 55.51a 0.887 0.759 0.723 0.719 0.71 0.69Mean 4.09 2.43 2.44 4.19 4.04 3.39s 0.59 0.75 0.71 0.75 0.78 0.66

Table I.Serbia brand image

perceived by Serbianresidents – rotatedcomponent matrix

for PCA withOblimin rotation for

6 factor solution

261

Serbia brandidentity

Thus, we found that the optimal factor number was 6. We facilitated another PCA andforced the procedure to suggest six factors. The six component solution explaineda total of 55.51 percent of the total variance of Serbia as a destination brand. To aid inthe interpretation of identified components, Oblimin rotation was performed. The sixbrand identity elements emerged (for the detail findings of PCA please refer to Table I):

. (C1) People – 25.54 percent of total variance explained. It was found that peopleare the most significant brand identity element. Despite the life in a countryburdened with problems, Serbian people enjoy and celebrate life with the soundsof Serbian folk music. They are talented in sports, curious and good looking.

. (C2) Obsolescence – 8.75 percent of total variance explained. Serbia was found asa country that falls behind modern world and current trends. Serbia was alsodescribed as mainly rural, under-developed and a non-European country.

. (C3) Negative media bias – 7.01 percent of total variance explained. Negativemedia bias seems to be the outcome of many years of conflict in the region andthe role of Serbian people in these misfortunate events. Serbia and Serbs wereusually presented in foreign media as “bad guys” and initiators of civil war inYugoslavia. Despite the fact that Balkan conflicts are more than a decade behind,the Serbian media picture is still considered to be negatively biased and notauthentically presented in the domestic foreign media.

. (C4) Recommendable tourist destination – 4.99 percent of total varianceexplained. Serbia was found to be a hospitable country, with great cuisine andglorious history, recommendable to every foreign visitor. This is also a point ofself-reference as respondents identify themselves with the role of a good hostwhich is a part of the Serbian cultural matrix.

Pattern/structure coefficientsCommunalityAttitudinal statement item C1 C2 T3 T4

Serbia is mainly urban 0.770 0.020 0.015 0.085 0.601Serbs have unique and distinctive culture 0.720 0.201 0.091 0.279 0.644When mentioning Serbia, I only have niceassociations 0.706 0.425 �0.107 0.124 0.706Serbs are nicely up brought 0.666 0.419 �0.068 �0.114 0.637Serbia is a country of glorified history 0.622 0.423 �0.083 0.308 0.668Serbia is country of hospitality 0.162 0.850 0.027 0.122 0.764Serbia is country in which one should invest 0.299 0.772 �0.035 0.142 0.707Serbia is country I would recommend to everyforeign visitor 0.174 0.733 0.074 0.368 0.709Serbia is country with high-quality products 0.426 0.602 0.212 0.204 0.631The image of Serbia in media is better than reality �0.216 �0.094 0.857 0.062 0.794The image of Serbia in media is positive 0.173 0.186 0.846 �0.083 0.788Serbia can be proud with its national cuisine 0.041 0.483 0.052 0.731 0.757Serbia is country of great cuisine. 0.502 0.157 �0.107 0.684 0.772

C1 C2 C3 C4 Total% of variance explained 22.58 21.18 11.14 14.16 69.52a 0.837 0.861 0.580 0.639Mean 3.4 3.97 2.48 4.21s 0.88 0.99 0.90 0.96

Table II.Serbia brand imageperceived by Serbiandiaspora – rotatedcomponent matrixfor PCA with Obliminrotation for 4 factorsolution

262

EMJB7,3

. (C5) Rich national treasury – 4.72 percent of total variance explained. Serbia isperceived as rich in archeological sites, monuments, monasteries and naturalbeauties. Even though aware of national treasury, it would be interesting toexamine how many of these places are in reality visited by Serbian residents.

. (C6) Cultural uniqueness – 4.5 percent of total variance explained. Serbia isdescribed as a country with distinctive culture, where tradition, countryside andchurch play vital roles in the everyday lives of Serbian people.

4.2 Serbia brand identity: diaspora perspectiveIn total 160 Serbs from diaspora participated in the survey. Examined diaspora(n¼ 160) was in average 31.84 years old (SD 9.005, median 30, mode 29, range 17-61years). Prior to the performance of PCA, the suitability of data for factor analysiswas assessed. All of the 38 attitudinal statements had communalities higher thanthe recommended value of 0.5. PCA was then fully performed. Inspection of thecorrelation matrix revealed that all of the coefficients were equal to or higher than 0.3.The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was 0.758, exceeding the recommended value of 0.5,while Bartlett’s test of sphericity reached statistical significance of 0.00, thussupporting factorability of the correlation matrix. Initial PCA was performed usingOblimin rotation technique which suggested the existence of four factors. In order todetermine the optimal number of factors, parallel analysis (MonteKarlo simulation)was used and projected eigenvalues were compared with the eigenvalues given by thePCA (Palant, 2005). Parallel analysis showed four components with eigenvaluesexceeding the corresponding criterion values for a randomly generated data matrix ofthe same size (38 variables� 141 responses). Thus, we found that optimal factornumber was 4. We facilitated another PCA (Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was 0.877 andBartlett’s test of sphericity reached statistical significance of 0.00) that was performedusing Oblimin rotation technique and forced procedure to suggest four factors andreduced the number of attitudinal statements from 38 to 14 due to unsatisfactorycommunalities. Next PCA, showed that one out of 14 attitudinal statements hadcommunalities o0.5 and was excluded from further analysis. The final number ofelements (attitudinal statements) was 13.

The PCA revealed four components of Serbia brand identity among diaspora(for full details please refer to Table II). This solution explained a total of 69.52 percentof the total variance of Serbia as a brand construct:

. (C1) Nostalgia – 22.58 percent of total variance explained. This is the strongestbrand identity element for diaspora. As the proverb says “There is no place likehome” it should not be surprising that Serbs from diaspora feel homesick andnostalgic. This is a strong emotional entanglement that keeps diaspora alwaysclose to the “fire.”

. (C2) Business and pleasure destination – 21.18 percent of total varianceexplained. Diaspora usually sees Serbia either through business or pleasure.As explained in the introduction, Serbia is dependent on money coming fromdiaspora and most Serbs from diaspora have a significantly better standard ofliving than the majority in Serbia. Many diaspora Serbs invest their capital inSerbia and expand their business there. On the other hand, part of the diasporaSerbs visits Serbia only for the leisure purposes and reunion with their familyand cousins.

263

Serbia brandidentity

. (C3) Negative media bias – 11.14 percent of total variance explained. Negativemedia bias reveals that Serbia and Serbs are usually presented in aninappropriate manner in almost every foreign country. This is also interesting asit reveals the inertia of foreign media and deeply rooted prejudice of Serbs ina negative light stemming from the civil war in Yugoslavia.

. (C4) Great cuisine – 14.16 percent of total variance explained. Serbs are fond ofSerbian cuisine and this is also close with the phenomenon of nostalgia. Foodtakes the central place in Serbian culture and staying hungry is one of the worstfears of an average Serb. Opposite to Serbian residents, Serbian traditional foodis not so available and accessible to Serbian diaspora and this might be thereason why Serbs living abroad daydream about proper Serbian dishes madejust as “grandma does.”

4.3 Residents and diaspora: divergences and convergences in brand perceptionsThe first major difference, in the perception of Serbia brand identity by Serbianresidents and diaspora, was found in the number of elements identified within both ofthe groups. Serbian residents outlined six elements, out of which the most positivelyassociated elements of Serbian brand identity are: people, negative media bias,obsolesce and tourism destination. On the other side, Serbian diaspora perceived onlyfour elements of Serbia brand identity: mild nostalgia, business and pleasuredestination, negative media bias and great cuisine.

Comparing the results of Serbian residents and diaspora, it is possible toconclude that both audiences recognize Serbia as a recommendable tourism destinationfor business and pleasure. Also, Serbian residents had a more detailed approach whenanalyzing Serbian brand identity features. This can be related to a range of “first hand”information and experiences that are accessible to them.

The second difference can be found in the core emotions that drive both audiences.Serbian diaspora is often driven by the emotion of nostalgia (longing for home) and itreflects on perceived elements of Serbia brand identity. Serbian residents rated peopleas the most important element of Serbia brand identity. Serbian sportsmen, scientistsand young talented people make often Serbian public proud, as they are the mainsource of good news for Serbia.

Finally, both audiences agreed that media bias is negatively associated with Serbia hasa negative influence on the destination image and international positioning of Serbia as adestination brand. But still both Serbian iaspora and residents hold the view that Serbia isa recommendable destination for tourism, business and pleasure (see Figure 1 forgraphical description of differences and similarities of Serbian diaspora and residents).

5. Implication to theory and practiceThis study is specific in its hands-on approach in finding and confirming elementsof a country’s brand identity. The main theoretical contribution can be found in theeffective approach of country brand image exploration which can give a conceptualguideline for the future researchers interested in this topic. Furthermore, this studydemonstrates how members of same nation who live in the country and outside thecountry have different significant views and perceptions of what is the brand image oftheir home country. Diaspora of developing countries is generally recognized as animportant factor of an economical development of a country. Therefore, being aware oftheir perceptions and understandings of the brand image of their home country can givesolid foundations for creating institutional communication instruments with diaspora.

264

EMJB7,3

6. ConclusionReferring to the research question stated at the beginning of the paper and according toour findings, significant differences and similarities between Serbian diaspora andSerbian residents exist. Serbian diaspora identified four elements of Serbia brandidentity: mild nostalgia, business and pleasure destination, negative media bias andgreat cuisine. Residents were more detailed and identified six broad brand identityelements: people, obsolescence, negative media bias, cultural uniqueness, touristdestination and national treasure. Furthermore, both audiences are driven by differentemotions that are strongly affecting their perception of Serbia as a brand – diasporaby nostalgia and residents by national pride. Diaspora and residents highlightedthat negative media bias that follows Serbia as a country has a strong impact on external perception and positioning Serbia as a brand. Lastly, despite allnegative associations that surround Serbia, both audiences match the opinion thatSerbia is still a recommendable tourist destination and a great place to visit.

There are several limitations of this research study that need to be highlighted.Primarily, small sample size of diaspora, as well as the period spent living abroad that wasnot taken in consideration for this research can be seen as significant limitation of this study.

Having in mind the fact that Serbian diaspora has a great impact on Serbianeconomical and social development; future research should be specifically targeted forcountries where the majority of Serbian diaspora live. Further research should alsofocus on recognizing core values of the Serbian brand identity from residents anddiaspora perspective in order to create a unique destination branding strategy fordevelopment and differentiation of Serbian brand identity from its competitors in theBalkans and Mediterranean region.

References

Anholt, S. (2005), “Anholt nation brands index: how does the world see America?”, Journal ofAdvertising Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 296-304.

External perspective – Serbian diasporaTVE=69.52%

VE 25.54% People

Negative media bias

Obsolescence

VE 7.01%

VE 4.72%

VE 4.5%

Tourist destination

Cultural uniqueness

National treasury

UVE 44.49%

VE 8.5%

Mild nostalgia

Business and pleasure

destination

Great cuisine

Negative media bias

UVE 30.48%

Internal perspective – Serbian residentsTVE = 55.51%

VE 22.58%

VE 21.18%

VE 11.14%

TVE 14.16%

VE 4.99%

*TVE = total variance explainedVE=varience explained

UVE=unexplained variance

Figure 1.Different perspective –

elements of Serbiabrand identity

265

Serbia brandidentity

Azorın, J.M. and Cameron, R. (2010), “The application of mixed methods in organisationalresearch: a literature review”, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 8No. 2, pp. 95-105.

Brijs, K., Bloemer, J. and Kasper, H. (2011), “Country-image discourse model: unraveling meaning,structure and function of country images”, Vol. 64 No. 12, pp. 1259-69.

Conway, D. and Timms, B.F. (2010), “Re-branding alternative tourism in the Caribbean: the casefor ‘slow tourism’”, Tourism & Hospitality Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 329-44.

Duborija, W.M. and Mlivic, A. (2008), “A long forgotten jewel branding and imaging ofa destination”, master thesis, Baltic Business School, University of Kalmar.

Ekinci, Y., Sirakaya-Turk, E. and Baloglu, S. (2007), “Host image and destination personality”,Tourism Analysis, Vol. 12 Nos 5/6, pp. 433-46.

Freire, J.R. (2007), “Local People a critical dimension for place brands”, Brand Management,Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 420-38.

Garrod, B., Fyall, A., Leask, A. and Reid, E. (2012), “Engaging residents as stakeholders of thevisitor attraction”, Tourism Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1159-73.

Hall, D. (2002), “Brand development, tourism and national identity: the re-imaging of formerYugoslavia”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 Nos 4/5, pp. 323-34.

Hsu, T.K., Tsai, Y.F. and Wu, H.H. (2009), “The preference analysis for tourist choice ofdestination: a case study of Taiwan”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30, pp. 288-97.

Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004), “Mixed methods research: a research paradigmwhose time has come”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 14-26.

Kaiser, H. (1970), “A second generation Little Jiffy”, Psychometrika, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 401-15.

Kaiser, H. (1974), “An index of factorial simplicity”, Psychometrika, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 31-6.

Kaufmann, H.R. and Durst, S. (2008), “Developing inter-regional brands”, EuroMed Journal ofBusiness, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 38-62.

Konecnik, M. (2010), “Extending the tourism destination image concept into customer-basedequity for a tourism destination”, Economic Research, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 24-42.

Konecnik, M. and Go, F. (2008), “Tourism destination brand identity: the case of Slovenia”, BrandManagement, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 177-89.

Malhotra, N.K. (2007), Marketing Research, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. NJ.

Martinovic, S. (2002), “Branding Hrvatska – a mixed blessing that might succeed: the advantagesof being unrecognisable”, Brand Management, Vol. 9 Nos 4/5, pp. 315-22.

Maurya, U.K. and Mishra, P. (2012), “What is a brand? A perspective on brand meaning”,European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 122-33.

Merrilees, B., Miller, D. and Herington, C. (2012), “Multiple stakeholders and multiple city brandmeanings”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 1-25.

Mikavica, A. (2011), “Od nasih iz sveta 3,1 milijarda evra”, Politika Electronic Newspaper, Vol. 64No. 5, available at: www.politika.rs/rubrike/Ekonomija/Od-nasih-iz-sveta-31-milijarda-evra.lt.html (accessed May 7, 2011).

Ministry of Religion and Diaspora of the Republic of Serbia (2010), “Basic information” availableat: www.mzd.gov.rs/eng/Info/InfoPage.aspx (accessed May 7, 2011).

Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, A. (2003), “Destination branding and the role of thestakeholders: the case of New Zealand”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 285-99.

Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Pride, R. (2002), “Marketing to the Welsh diaspora: the appeal tohiraeth and homecoming”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 69-80.

Newland, K. and Taylor, C. (2010), “Migration policy institute”, available at: www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/diasporas-tradetourism.pdf (accessed September 10, 2010).

266

EMJB7,3

Palant, J. (2005), SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS forWindows V.12, 2nd ed., Open University, Berkshire.

Phillips, L. and Schofield, P. (2007), “Pottery, pride and prejudice: assessing resident images forcity branding”, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-11.

Pike, S. (2009), “Destination brand positions of a competitive set of near-home destinations”,Tourism Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 857-66.

Popesku, M., Damnjanovic, V., Novcic, B. and Premovic, M. (2010), “Serbia as brand internalperspective”, 3rd Annual Euromed Conference, Nicosia, November 4-5, pp. 877-94.

Qu, H., Hyunjung Kim, L.H. and Holly Hyunjung, I. (2011), “A model of destination branding:integrating the concepts of the branding and destination image”, Tourism Management,Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 465-76.

Ristiano, M. (2005), Il sistema locale d’offerta turistica, Strategie disviluppo integrato dei territori.Il sistema locale dei Campi Flegrei, Il Mulino Editore, Bologna.

Roy, D. and Banerjee, S. (2007), “CARE-ing strategy for integration of brand identity with brandimage”, International Journal of Commerce & Management, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2, pp. 140-8.

Salehi, K. and Golafshani, N. (2010), “Commentary using mixed methods in research studies: anopportunity with its challenges”, International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches,Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 186-91.

Scheyvens, R. (2007), “Poor cousins no more: valuing the development potential of domestic anddiaspora tourism”, Progress in Development Studies, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 307-25.

Statistical office of the republic of Serbia (2010), “Latest indicators”, available at: http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/axd/en/index.php (accessed April 1, 2010).

Stevens, J. (1996), Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, 3rd ed., LawrenceErlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Tabachnik, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., PearsonInternational Edition, Boston, MA.

Tasci, A.D. and Kozak, M. (2006), “Destination brands vs destination images: do we know whatwe mean?”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 299-317.

Further reading

Goulding, C. and Domic, D. (2009), “Heritage, identity and ideological manipulation: the case ofCroatia”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 85-102.

Merrilees, B., Miller, D., Herington, C. and Smith, C. (2007), “Brand Cairns: an insider (resident)stakeholder perspective”, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 12 Nos 5/6, pp. 409-17.

Nath, P. (2007), MA Program 2007 – Research Methods (N1D042) Quantitative Methods 1ACourse Handbook, Nottingham University Business School, Nottingham.

Ruzzier, M., Petek, N. and Konecnik Ruzzier, M. (2010), “The role of locals in implementing andliving the country brand: I feel Slovenia”, V: 6th International Conference Thought Leadersin Brand Management, Lugano, April 18-20, pp. 1201-16.

Serbian Unity Congress (2011), “Official statistics”, available at: www.serbianunity.com/serbianunitycongress/statistic (accessed May 1, 2011).

Corresponding authorBranka Novcic can be contacted at: brankanovcic@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

267

Serbia brandidentity