AN OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF PLACE BRANDING
Introduction
Place branding, though only booming the past decade or so, has existed in some form for centuries. In an era where people are more connected than ever before, wanting to explore the world around them, place branding has morphed into a multi-million dollar industry to promote destinations around the globe for tourism, business, and cultural growth. Today places pay close attention to their branding in order to attract different target audiences that could build the destinations’ identities as well as their economies. Whether strategic, meaning carefully and intentionally developed, or organic, meaning accidental but natural, place branding can play a vital role in the development of the image of a destination in the minds of consumers as it has for years in the past.
Section 1: An Overview of Place Branding
I. Place Branding Defined
A place brand is defined as “a network of associations in the consumers’ mind based on the visual, verbal, and behavioural expressions of a place, which is embodied through the aims, communications, values, and the general culture of the place’s stakeholders and the overall place design” (Zenker, 2010). This definition implies that the brand of a destination is all in the perceptions of the consumer, and not necessarily reality. In this way, place branding, simply the process of creating or managing one of these brands, is very similar to the branding and marketing of any other product as it “seeks to position places in a globalized market environment,” (Kalandides, 2012). Just as a company may market their product as the best for a certain target, whether it is a true statement or not, branders of a destination can market and promote a city in any way they feel may appeal to their target consumers, motivated by “competition among cities for tourists, investors, companies, new citizens, and most of all qualified workforce,” (Zenker, 2010).
II. Place Branding Throughout History
The popularity of this field as an effort to promote destinations is recent, but traces of place branding are evident throughout history. Although place marketing was first identified as a “challenging field for the future” in 1976 by marketers Ray O’Leary and Ian Iredale, who described place marketing efforts as “activities designed to create favourable dispositions and behaviors toward geographic locations,” the field has a much longer history than its modern definition (Zenker, 2010). Thousands of years prior in ancient Greece, Alexander the Great believed that, “the success or failure of places depended largely on the image they projected beyond their borders,” making place branding virtually as ancient as civilization itself (de San Eugino, 2013). Centuries later, on his way to what was soon to be the United States of America, John Winthrop labeled the colonies “a city upon a hill,” a true example of the ideal Christian society, before the colonies had even been established. Even after the country had been secularized, the branding was carried through America’s history and reconfirmed by President John F. Kennedy in his 1961 “City Upon a Hill” speech then again by President Ronald Reagan through his “shining city on a hill” quote in the ‘80s.
Moving forward into the late 1980s and early 1990s, two publications that recognized “the significance of the concept of the [place] brand is real rather than token, as occurs within the ambit of promotion,” were written: City Marketing: instruments and effects by Bartels and Timmer and Selling the City by Ashworth and Voogd (de San Eugenio, 2013). These works recognized place branding as a field of promotional communication for the benefit of the place that was overall lacking in strategy, but they attempted to “develop a strategic planning framework for place marketing” in order to advance the field. Shortly after in 1993, 1999, and 2002, author Philip Kotler wrote a series of books that helped to gain recognition for the field of place marketing, though it still remained “a subject in the periphery of marketing academy” (Zenker, 2010). This acted as the final push for place marketing into the new millennium, in which the field boomed, gaining in popularity among city officials as they are “eager to garner positive associations” in the minds of their targeted consumers (Zenker, 2010).
III. Place Branding Evolves
The field evolved over these many years of development, moving it from its simplest, original form to the complex, strategic process it is today. This evolution can be summarized by three stages: promotion, selling of places, and marketing strategies. The initial base of this modern form of communication by places was strictly promotional, as it was “communication for [the place’s] own sake, without a specific long-term strategy and with the sole purpose of selling.” This is the most basic form of place marketing, but it soon improved. Communication developed into the “selling of places” in which the communication was “strongly linked to advertising and the marketing of cities in terms of culture.” Place marketing finally developed into a field of strategic processes, involving “the large-scale incorporation of business dynamics into the management and communication of spaces.” This is where modern place branding falls, as it is a method to “differentiate and position certain spaces with the principal aim of projecting an image towards an external audience, the aim being to move beyond the attraction of tourists in order to also draw talent, investment capital, infrastructure etc.” (de San Eugenio Vela, 2013).
Place branding is much more complex that its previous forms, incorporating much more strategy and cultural aspects to appeal to various audiences for various purposes. Now, place branding “is not defined by economic gains, rather the brand aims to achieve a positive reputation for the place, which in turn will report economic benefits,” (de San Eugenio Vela, 2013).
Section 2: A Glance at Place Branding Strategy
Though the origins of place branding are relatively narrow, the types and variations of this branding can vary immensely based on the identity goals of the place, its geographic type, and its different audiences. Place branding is multi-faceted, as the perceptions that lead to and result from the place’s branding differ among the different targets and influence the strategy significantly.
As mentioned previously, the brand of a place is based on the perceptions of the audience being targeted and not necessarily on reality. However, the reality of a place, or its “place physics” can factor into the perceptions of the place. The “communicated place brand” and the “place physics” work together to form the place brand perception of the target group. “These perceptions lead the brand effects such as identification or satisfaction” (Zenker, 2010). In other words, a consumer either identifies or is satisfied with the place based on the perceptions made around the brand message and the place’s actual features.
I. Place Branding According to Place Identity
According to researcher Peter Weichhart in his book Place Identity and Images, there are “three types of place identity: identification of, being identified as, and identification with.” These are three different ways a place can be branded. When a place tries to achieve identification of, its branding is focused solely on “the way in which people (groups or individuals) understand and recognize [the place], as they do other objects, [and] assign them characteristics and particularities.” This is a more basic form of place branding, and most places go beyond this form of identification to being identified as. This form treats the branding of a place in a reverse way, identifying it based on the people within it by the way the “people (again both groups and individuals) are recognized in their relations to their place or origin, residence etc.” The highest and most complex form of identification that place brands should strive for is identification with, which “seeks to explore the links between the human and the world in which it lives, [and] is about the ways that people incorporate place into their own identity construction,” (Kalandides, 2012). This is the form that modern, complex, marketing-strategy-based place branding should take, as its goals should go beyond mere identification into a true relationship with consumers.
II. Place Branding According to Place Type
Place brands must also tailor their strategies based upon their type of location, as countries soliciting investment must have different marketing strategies than cities attempting to attract tourists. A place can be branded as a geographical space, a country or nation, a city, or a destination, or a combination. Branding of a geographic space, or spatial branding, is unique in that it “is not an activity that can be guided by intuition or chance, rather it involves a highly integrated and strategic sphere of action.” These are places that have images based around the needs of multitudes rather than targets, making spatial branding a “natural consequence of a new form of territorial governance that is geared towards satisfying the needs and desires of a potential public” (de San Eugenio Vela, 2013).
The branding of a country or nation can play a vital role in its global identity and economic relationships, making it one of the more technical levels of place branding. This branding can influence trade and exports, tourism, and stereotypes of the country, making it “a requirement for places that wish to compete in a globalized world.” This type of branding has a more narrow focus than spatial branding, but its scope remains broad as its “primary consideration is to take into account global interests” (de San Eugenio Vela, 2013).
Perhaps the most common form of place branding is that of cities, that is “the brand within the context of urban and/or metropolitan space.” The increase this sector has experienced can be attributed to the “competition between cities which underlies the need to promote changes in the public organization and management of the metropolis, especially in terms of achieving a certain positional goal” (de San Eugenio Vela, 2013). Every city in the United States has branded itself in one way or another to create an identity that people can recognize and remember, whether Las Vegas’s “Sin City” or Hershey, Pennsylvania’s “Sweetest Place on Earth.” These brands develop based on the “abstract and intangible aspects” of the city rather than the place physics, and they tend to be “identities [with] highly-charged emotional context required for differentiation.” In this way, these cities become a product themselves, a product for “cultural consumption” (de San Eugenio Vela, 2013). Because branding of cities are so powerful and significant, this is the realm of place branding most recognized.
The final area of place branding is that of a tourist space, or a destination brand, which caters to one of the biggest industries in branded countries--tourism. These are brands that are either strategic or developed by tourists based on their experiences in the cities. Tourism has a strong connection with the image of every city, and is “positioned as a central axis of the processes which link together image, brand, and territory. Destination branding plays the biggest role in bringing these tourists to the destinations for the places to develop even stronger identities. However, this sector does have a negative side, as this is often the most unrealistic representation of a place possible, created solely to build positive perceptions in the minds of travelers to influence them to pay the place a visit. Destination branding “distorts the perceptions of a country through its projection of a diffuse and global image which goes beyond the scope of what are purely tourist interests; this occurs as a secondary effect of the desire to sell a tourist destination at all costs” (de San Eugenio Vela, 2013).
III. Place Branding According to Target Audience
In addition to differences in areas, place branding and its strategies can differ based on the different audiences the place is trying to attract. There are three main types of target groups for place branding: visitors, residents and workers, and business and industry. Visitors are the most recognized group, especially for destination brands and cities with the goals of attracting tourists for economic gain. These tourists can include business tourists and leisure tourists, both of which can be strongly influenced by the proper place branding. This group, like all others, has unique needs and perceptions that the place must consider when branding, which could include an interest in “leisure time activities like shopping malls or cultural offerings” (Zenker, 2010).
The resident and workers target group is slightly more complex, as it must incorporate internal and external parties, that is, those within and outside the city or country. This type of group is most common with city branding as cities compete for qualified workers and residents to maintain the various industries in the city. Internal targets and external targets both can include the creative class, a skilled workforce, and students, but the cities still must differentiate between the internal and externals groups to ensure proper branding and address their needs of “an attractive living environment” (Zenker, 2010).
Business and industry make up the final target category, and perhaps the most significant. This is the target that has the potential to make up the majority of a place’s economy, which is then supplemented by tourism and residents. This group also contains internal and external parties, having investors and companies (sectors) as common targets. These parties are interested in “business topics” and are in search of “a suitable business environment” in which to conduct their practices. In addition internal targets can include civil service groups, or the public service branches, that often act as gatekeepers and opinion leaders for places (Zenker, 2010).
It is important for place brands to recognize their different targets and treat each of them differently, as “an equal brand communication for [all] target groups would disregard the complexity of a place and probably fail” (Zenker, 2010). The strategies of this complex field must be specifically tailored to the different audiences. However, the branding of places does not always begin as something strategic, as is sometimes the case with city and destination brands.
Section 3: A Case Study: Organic versus Strategic Place Branding
Often, as mentioned previously, the perceptions and images of these places are developed by the individuals who experience them first hand. This is called organic place branding, the place where the perceptions of the audiences overlap with the realities of the place to develop a uniquely representative image of the location (Iglesias, 2015).
I. Organic Branding Defined
Organic branding is branding from the “inside out,” as it works to “create a brand based on the company culture itself” rather than creating a brand then trying to fit the culture into its mold (Bonigala, 2010). In other words, this type of branding can form from existing perceptions as well as actual identity rather than the perceptions forming from the brand. The strategy, therefore, is applied later to manage the developed brand and maintain the image, instead of strategy-based branding that requires extensive development in the beginning. An organically-branded place “embraces its external audience and encourages individuals to connect with, challenge and contribute to the brand” (Iglesias, 2015). Organic branding has many advantages over strategic branding, as it creates an image that is more representational and therefore more credible among the targets, and it often succeeds over strategic branding when two cities branded by the different methods compete. To illustrate this point, I analyzed the branding of two of the nation’s “hipster” cities: Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon.
II. Hipster Branding of Seattle and Portland
In 2012 Seattle was voted America’s Best City for Hipsters, contrary to popular belief that Portland, popularized as America’s favorite hipster city by IFC’s original comedy Portlandia, which satirized the city’s offbeat nature, held this title (Rolph, 2012). Portland has branded itself as an Indie, hipster city for years, promoting its microbreweries and food truck industry to a narrow target of tattooed and liberal young adults. Upon visiting Portland’s official tourism website travelportland.com, one is greeted by vintage illustrations, hand-lettered fonts, and photos of the ‘hip’ crowd that lives and visits there. All elements of Portland’s image across the board are consistent in their messaging that Portland is a hipster haven, and they have the stats to match. Portland is the fifth most tattooed city in the country, has three times more food carts than garbage trucks, and 13 more thrift stores than Seattle, all of which they boast as part of Portland’s hip identity (Rolph, 2012). It is clear that Portland has taken strategic measures to create their hipster image.
Seattle, however, has an extremely neutral and generic tourism website. It promotes a wide variety of events and aspects of the city that cater to a wide range of audiences rather than just one small group. The design is simple without any sign of hipster branding as is other Seattle tourism messaging, yet “Seattle hipster” generates over 2.57 million links on Google, which is over a million more than “Portland hipster” (Rolph, 2012). Perhaps this is attributed to Seattle’s “yarn bombing,” a form of graffiti that uses colorful yarn instead of paint, or its title as the location of the most hipster beer in the world by Churchkey Can Co., but regardless Seattle has managed an organic brand as a hipster city developed by the consumers that have been there, rather than its tourism office.
Although Portland puts much effort into the branding of the city as a place for hipsters, Seattle’s reputation in this regard is surpassing that of Portland. Seattle’s image is being constantly generated by real consumers who are creating their own associations and perceptions about the city based on what they actually experience instead of what the city’s brand influences them to believe. Its image is being developed from the inside out, and I believe the organic brand will soon align with Seattle’s tourism strategies, meaning that the tourism office will take advantage of and capitalize on the brand that has been created for them, a brand that is already much more successful than their strategic generic tourist marketing.
Conclusion
Place branding, whether organic or strategic, is vital to the cultural development of any area, country, city or destination. If a place is able to tactfully brand itself or capitalize on the image created for it by others, it can be much more successful in its economic and cultural growth. Branded places, however, must still always remember their identity goals, as well as who they are trying to attract, as the methods to cater to these factors vary greatly. The evolution of the field that developed its strategies has done nothing but make the industry more successful as it becomes more consumer-focused, using the perceptions and attitudes of consumers as contributions, if not foundations, to build a unique identity to help differentiate the destination amongst thousands of others.
Works Cited
Bonigala, Mash (2010). "Organic Branding: A Small Business Success Story." Mash Bonigala. Retrieved from http://www.bonigala.com/organic-branding-a-small-business-success-story
De San Eugino Vela, Jordi (2013). "Place Branding: A Conceptual and Theoretical Framework." Boletin Age. Retrieved from http://www.boletinage.com/articulos/62/27-SAN%20EUGENIO.pdf
Iglesias, Oriol (2015). "Organic Brands: Why Managers Need a New Perspective About Branding." Academia.edu. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1442403/Organic_Brands_Why_Managers_Need_a_New_Perspective_About_Branding
Kalandides, Ares (2012). "Place Branding and Place Identity. An Integrated Approach." Tafter Journal RSS. Retrieved from http://www.tafterjournal.it/2012/01/03/place-branding-and-place-identity-an-integrated-approach/
Rolph, Amy (2012). "Northwest Hipster Battle: Seattle vs. Portland in Epic Showdown." Estately Blog. Hearst Seattle Media, LLC. Retrieved from http://blog.estately.com/2012/09/northwest-hipster-showdown-seattle-vs-portland/
"Visit Portland, Oregon - Travel Portland." Travel Portland. Retrieved April 04, 2015 from http://www.travelportland.com/
"Visit Seattle, Washington." Visit Seattle. Retrieved April 04, 2015 from http://www.visitseattle.org/Home.aspx
Zenker, Sebastian, and Erik Braun, PhD (2010). "The Place Brand Centre." Placebrand.edu. Retrieved from http://www.placebrand.eu/mediapool/85/857874/data/Zenker_Braun_EMAC2010.pdf